Which is better: Avengers or The Dark Knight?

Originally posted by Placidity
Again, I just felt the aliens should've been stronger. Nick Fury does give a strong impression (or outright says it) that it would surely be an global apocalyptic threat. The statement and what was shown don't match in my view. I never felt the world at danger, or any Avenger for that matter except for Black Widow when Hulk was about to squash her. Why people feel the need to indomitably challenge that I will never understand (other than its their precious).

Stands to reason they couldn't have kept fighting wave after wave after wave, barring possibly the Hulk, Thor and maybe Iron Man, though he does run out of ammo too, except for the repulsors.

As far as the aliens being stronger, I agree, if the ground forces hadn't been such easy cannon fodder, it likely would have made for some suspense, but Captain America needed something to take on. A balance was needed, imo, if the ships and aliens had been a severe challenge for Hulk and Thor, what are the other Avengers going to do?

Originally posted by Placidity

No, and blatant strawman statements like that aren't helping. I see many people don't even know what is being discussed, firing off arguments while blind and a lot of time just being wrong.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
the two best posts in here

true its really not a very good comparison.Like someone else said,apples and oranges.Its kinda like asking someone which is better-Superman or Batman 89.The original superman movie and Batman were two completely different kinds of movies so thats not a very good comparsion so yeah,I would say the same applies here.

I would say a much better more valid comparison would be The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2 or since The Dark Knight is mentioned in this thread title,The Dark Knight or Batman Begins.

But then it would be pointless to have that one since you know the majority are going to say The Dark Knight,thats why I think a thread title should be started called The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2.

I really dont care about the comparsion of those two movies,its just a much better valid comparison is all.Just saying.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Hours?! The city would have been destroyed in hours. And who knows how much of the alien army's big guns would have got through in Hours!

I'm starting to lose touch of what we're debating here...

Are you talking about The Avengers OR my reference to Cloverfield & the fact that the US Army was able to mobilise within hours of the invasion in the heart of New York?

Originally posted by Newjak
Are people really trying to say a simple RPG is better then the Avengers?

The whole point of the movie was to show that the normal Earth military would have been useless.

But besides that let's look at Ironman he has weapons that can destroy tanks easily, yet Jarvis specifically says he has nothing that can dent a Leviathan's armor so he has to go inside and blow it up that way, and he is equipped with the most advanced and dangerous weaponry developed by man in the film.

You're missing the point completely.
This whole debate started with someone making a statement that Captain America, BlackWidow & Hawkeye WERE BETTER than the US ARMY....NOT a RPG is more effective than The Avengers.

And the point about IronMan was that he may have the most advanced weaponry available BUT HE IS LIMITED to the amount of missiles/projectiles he can actually carry & arm himself with.

Originally posted by Placidity
Actually its some people being so defensive that's dragged this out into a full debate. If people can't accept any criticism or even let others hold that view then that's quite indicative of something isn't it.

So why do message boards exist in the first place?

Why be a member if you're not willing to enjoy a good debate.

Sometimes the issues seem pointless but they're pure escapism to the real problems we have in the real world...

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I seriously doubt Stark's weapons are designed to bring mass destruction.

But in terms of targeted most penetrating power? Stark will have the best.

But, as has been pointed out, he is very limited on what he can pack into his virtually form fitting suit. He will run out of awesome weapons much sooner than a crap ton of RPGs.

For a short game, yes, Stark is awesome. Anything over five minutes and he is limited to drawing fire.

Originally posted by -Pr-
And to think, I once had respect for you. 🙁

I thought you lost respect for me when I said you were Irish...or something. Don't even remember which one you are now. Scottish? Jewish?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
true its really not a very good comparison.Like someone else said,apples and oranges.Its kinda like asking someone which is better-Superman or Batman 89.The original superman movie and Batman were two completely different kinds of movies so thats not a very good comparsion so yeah,I would say the same applies here.

I would say a much better more valid comparison would be The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2 or since The Dark Knight is mentioned in this thread title,The Dark Knight or Batman Begins.

But then it would be pointless to have that one since you know the majority are going to say The Dark Knight,thats why I think a thread title should be started called The Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2.

I really dont care about the comparsion of those two movies,its just a much better valid comparison is all.Just saying.

👆

I actually detest when people ask to compare one movie with another, it's simply pointless.

I mean if Whedon did a version of The Dark Knight, then you could easily validate a comparison with Nolan's version & give an opinion of which you thought was better.
Same as if Nolan did his own take on The Avengers.

But to compare 2 movies that have nothing in common, when it comes to characters or plot, is just simply stupid.

^ Agreed. The question of which you liked more (and why) is valid, but the question of which is better is kind of stupid.

I disagree, of course, because any movie can be compared to any movie at any time. The idea that you cannot compare two movies is mostly bullshit and silly snobbery. It is obviously something that can be done.

I use a scale when comparing movies, universally. Some websites are dedicated to rating movies which can and are compared to each other all the time. Box Office Mojo also compres TDK with Avengers in sales and the overall scores of the films can be compared, as well.

But, for everyone, here is the rating scale I use in almost every film.

Color:
Lighting:
(Optional)3D Effect:
CGI Animation/Visual Effects:
Sound:
Music:

Score out of 6 categories.

Story:
Acting:
Character development:
Character Interaction:
Character realism:
Emotional Impact of the film:

Score out of 6 categories

Setting:
Innovation:
Fictional Tech in the movie (optional and usually applies to Sci-Fi):
Unique Flora and Fauna (optional and usually applies to Sci-Fi):
Wow Factor:
Camera Angles/Use/choreography:
Re-watchability:

Score out of 7 categories.

An A++ is a 100. A+ 98. A 95. A- 92. A-- 90. ("A++ is the only category that ends in a 100, all other letters for a ++ end in a 9. So a C++ is a 79.)

Here is how I rated Avengers:

Color: B+
Lighting: B-
(Optional)3D Effect: ?
CGI Animation/Visual Effects: A
Sound: A-
Music: C+

Score out of 5 categories due to area 3 not being counted: 435

Story: D+
Acting: D-
Character development: D
Character Interaction: B-
Character realism: D
Emotional Impact of the film: D

Score out of 6 categories: 407

Setting: C--
Innovation: C
Fictional Tech in the movie (optional and usually applies to Sci-Fi): B+
Unique Flora and Fauna (optional and usually applies to Sci-Fi): C-
Wow Factor: B-
Camera Angles/Use/choreography: C+
Re-watchability: C

Score out of 7 categories: 540

Add all the scores up and divide by 18 (there are 18 categories being counted in the overall score).

(435+407+540)/18 = 77

So I would give the movie a high 7.

That's a decent score. Still entertaining, but not nearly as awesome as people are making it out to be. If I had rated the film right after viewing it, I would have given it a much lower score. Luckily, I did not. That would not have been fair. I may watch it again. 😄

I also gave Thor a 7, but it was almost an 8.

Here is how TDK breaks down for me:

Color: A-
Lighting: A
(Optional)3D Effect: ?
CGI Animation/Visual Effects: A
Sound: A+
Music: A+

Score out of 5 categories due to area 3 not being counted: 478

Story: A
Acting: A
Character development: A
Character Interaction: A-
Character realism: B
Emotional Impact of the film: A

Score out of 6 categories: 557

Setting: A
Innovation: A-
Fictional Tech in the movie (optional and usually applies to Sci-Fi): B-
Unique Flora and Fauna (optional and usually applies to Sci-Fi): ?
Wow Factor: A+
Camera Angles/Use/choreography: B+
Re-watchability: A+

Score out of 6 categories: 553

Overall score is found by adding up each of the major three ares and dividing by 17 (there are 17 categories being counted in the overall score).

(478+557+553)/18 = 93.4

So I would give the movie a low 9.

Really like Avengers

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
You're missing the point completely.
This whole debate started with someone making a statement that Captain America, BlackWidow & Hawkeye WERE BETTER than the US ARMY....NOT a RPG is more effective than The Avengers.

And the point about IronMan was that he may have the most advanced weaponry available BUT HE IS LIMITED to the amount of missiles/projectiles he can actually carry & arm himself with.

As for Ironman while he may be limited he has the the most firepower. His weapons are leagues above the US Army. Even he was having trouble defending against them and taking down the big guys.

And I would compare his missiles vs an RPG as a Tiger Bite compared to a mosquito bite. A million mosquito bites will not do the same damage as one tiger bite, as long no disease is involved 😛

Originally posted by Newjak
And I would compare his missiles vs an RPG as a Tiger Bite compared to a mosquito bite. A million mosquito bites will not do the same damage as one tiger bite, as long no disease is involved 😛

No, not really. That's not accurate. They would be equal.

While Stark's are smaller and seem to be more nimble, an RPG is also an anti-tank ballistic. So they can both do the same thing as far as destruction goes.

If you want a better comparison, the FGM-148 is probably better. Those can reach mach 2, lock on to targets, have a HEAT warhead, and are portable. Hundreds of those to Tony's 10-15? Yeah, give me a small contingent of US military over
Mr. Stark. 🙂

In Ironman 2, they wanted Tony's suit because a platoon of those would make the US nigh-invincible.

I like Avengers Movie...

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I'm starting to lose touch of what we're debating here...

Are you talking about The Avengers OR my reference to Cloverfield & the fact that the US Army was able to mobilise within hours of the invasion in the heart of New York?

I thought you were saying the US army could be there within hours.

I'm saying that aliens would have done too much damage in hours and who knows how much they could have got in reinforcements in that time too. Perhaps their "biggest" guns had not even entered the fray yet.

Plus the army would have had the firepower to destroy that first wave of Alien troops, but I don't see them saving the city and it's civilians in the process. In fact military attacks of the caliber we are talking about usually do kill civilians in the masses.

Hence the Avengers were needed.

It kind of all comes down to that girl in the end who says "Captain America saved my life.." I doubt the US Military would have.

And plus the fact that they would not have been able to close the portal either. Loki would have got away and opened it somewhere else.

Hence the military would not have saved the world either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But, as has been pointed out, he is very limited on what he can pack into his virtually form fitting suit. He will run out of awesome weapons much sooner than a crap ton of RPGs.

I don't think anyone argued that Stark has more firepower than the whole army, or even close to it.

What we have been saying is that he will have the most advanced tech.

I personally think Stark stopped making WMD's after the events of Iron Man 1, but still his weapons on his armor probably have the most targeted and penetrating power.

Originally posted by dadudemon
For a short game, yes, Stark is awesome. Anything over five minutes and he is limited to drawing fire.

I think the short game was more important in the circumstances.

Who knows what kind of advanced alien ships would have come through in a drawn out battle.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not really. That's not accurate. They would be equal.

While Stark's are smaller and seem to be more nimble, an RPG is also an anti-tank ballistic. So they can both do the same thing as far as destruction goes.

If you want a better comparison, the FGM-148 is probably better. Those can reach mach 2, lock on to targets, have a HEAT warhead, and are portable. Hundreds of those to Tony's 10-15? Yeah, give me a small contingent of US military over
Mr. Stark. 🙂

In Ironman 2, they wanted Tony's suit because a platoon of those would make the US nigh-invincible.

The reason they wanted it so bad was because they didn't have a counter for it. His weapons were straight out better then anything the US military had. Not equal, not close, superior.

Now if you fired their biggest non nuclear weapons perhaps they would have equaled the power of a Tony Stark blast, but remember nothing Tony Stark had could shake the Leviathans without going inside one. He even used his hand laser things which cut through the drones in IM2 like a hot knife through butter. They didn't even scratch that big thing.

I'm sorry but the military would have been over run, considering the most technologically advanced/one of the smartest human beings on the planet was having a hard time keeping up or even putting dents in their numbers.

IM himself as shown in his previous films is too much for a military force to handle when he isn't playing around.

Originally posted by Newjak
Actually in Ironman 2 Tony himself was keeping everything at bay. Like he said he privatized world peace.

The reason they wanted it so bad was because they didn't have a counter for it. His weapons were straight out better then anything the US military had. Not equal, not close, superior.

LOL I completely forgot about this!

Yeah I think that movie made it pretty clear there's no man made weapon that's a match for the Iron Man armor. (At least non-nuclear anyway).

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Yeah I think that movie made it pretty clear there's no man made weapon that's a match for the Iron Man armor. (At least non-nuclear anyway).

The US military is not any single man-made weapon. Being the single most effective weapon does not mean it is more powerful than the collective intelligence agencies and armed forces, are you 12 years old? No seriously, I would like to know.

If the US didn't have any MOABs, are you going to say a MOAB is more powerful than the US military?

If the US didn't have any aircraft, are you going to say a single fighter jet is more powerful than the US military?

Heck, if the US military which consists of millions of people were only armed with knives, are you going to say a handgun is more powerful than the US military?

Quite frankly I'm embarrassed even trying to emulate your lack of logic.