Which is better: Avengers or The Dark Knight?

Ridley_Prime

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.
While I see where you're coming from, still think you're exaggerating on that last part. Batman had plenty of screentime, even if it wasn't as much as it was in Begins. Now Harvey Dent as Two-Face, that was what had too little screentime, to the point you could pretty much consider his appearances as just cameos. Too bad since he's probably still my favorite Batman villain.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Take Joker out of TDK and you don't have much.
On the other hand, take Loki out of the Avengers and I don't think you'll have missed too much from the movie. 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. Liked him better in the Thor movie since he seemed like more of a threat there and you could kinda empathize with him more. But in the end, Ledger Joker > Loki IMO, though like Darth Power said, comparing these two films is like comparing apples to oranges.

ybrotes_Sargon

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.

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, 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.

ybrotes_Sargon

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Ridley_Prime

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.
Compared to in the comics where Maroni or someone (forgot who now) poured some acid on Dent's face during a court session, I didn't think Harvey's transformation in the movie was rushed at all... but to each his own I guess. Dent always had some degree of madness though; the Joker just further unleashed what was already there, something any competent manipulator probably could've done. Always found Harvey's character interesting regardless though, especially with that infamous "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" line. Better than just about any line from the Avengers IMO.

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.
How did Maroni have more development than Batman, Rachel (even though I didn't like her), Gordon, etc.?

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Ledger's Joker is overrated, but was still the backbone of the film.
To a certain extent he was, though I don't think he was as much as you're making him out to be.

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

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.
Mainly Tony Stark really.

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.
thumb up

Esau Cairn

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

Myth

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.

dadudemon

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. smile

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

Darth Martin

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.

jinXed by JaNx

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.

Zack Fair

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?

http://gypsyvegan.com/images/lolcats/lolcat_bless_this_post.jpg

Bardock42

The first Spider-Man movie.

Robtard

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.

Patient_Leech

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) thumb up

Nephthys

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

Nope, apples to apples. smile

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.

the ninjak

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.

Arachnid1

Originally posted by Zack Fair
http://gypsyvegan.com/images/lolcats/lolcat_bless_this_post.jpg +2 for this. I liked the Dark Knight, but I liked the Avengers more. The only really interesting character in TDK was Joker. Everyone else was either really boring or OK. Even Batman himself was kind of boring. He didn't have the personality or presence he had in Begins. Luckily, TDKR looks like it's going to fix that, based on the trailers. I think the cast as a whole will be a bit more enjoyable, and it will actually be about Batman this time, as opposed to the bad guy.

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 Thanos was pulling all the strings the entire time though. He'll make a better villain than Loki, I'm sure.

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

Myth

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.

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.

Mindset

False.

Two Face.

RE: Blaxican

Had a retarded reason for turning into a sociopathic murderer.

Thoren

Dark knight.

dadudemon

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.

Myth

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."

Ridley_Prime

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Had a retarded reason for turning into a sociopathic murderer.
And Anakin didn't when he turned in episode III?

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.

Aaliyah

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

Nephthys

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!

ybrotes_Sargon

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.

Nephthys

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

ybrotes_Sargon

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 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.

Ridley_Prime

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.

DARTH POWER

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!

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon

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

Nope, apples to apples. smile

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

Mr Parker

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. mad

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. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Mr Parker

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

http://www.bigfanboy.com/pages/interviews/michaelkeaton/keaton-batman.jpg

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

Robtard

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.

BruceSkywalker

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
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 Robtard
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.

the two best posts in here

ybrotes_Sargon

Are you suggesting that the dark side compelled Anakin to attack Padme? That logic doesn't follow; the dark side doesn't force its adherents to mindlessly attack. Palpatine is the supreme dark sider in the films and manages to avoid murder sprees and displays of mindless slaughter (until it's time for the charade to fall). Anakin was certainly affected by the dark side, but it was his choice to attack her. He's hardly some puppet on the dark side's marionette.

We saw Vader TK the hell out of Sidious's laboratory (the novelization depicts that he did this with the intent of killing Sidious in rage, but simply lacked the power to do it and the script mentions Sidious having to deflect debris with the Force), not to mention the fact that Vader had been thinking of killing Sidious since his first day on the job. Vader hardly brushed Palpatine's culpability under the rug.

Gordon tried to save her life. The Joker ended her life. As for why Dent, who began the movie as Gotham's white knight, should show hesitation or remorse before killing children who had nothing to do with Rachel's death... I should think that would be obvious. To put it in simpler terms, Dent went from Jesus to Judas in the span of five minutes because Satan told him to and never looked back.

Anakin, meanwhile, attempted to do the right thing from the beginning, struggled with his decision, and only acted when he was desperate and backed into a corner by Palpatine in numerous ways.

Darth Martin

Bane a lame villain? Somebody is in store for a real surprise.....

Aaliyah

I mostly Prefer to Watch The Dark Knight Movie..

Ridley_Prime

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Ok this page has become a hardcore movie critics one.
Welcome to KMC, Killer Movie Critics. 313 I agree with the rest of what you were saying, btw.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Are you suggesting that the dark side compelled Anakin to attack Padme?
Well if he never turned to the dark side, do you think he would've ever choked Padme? I'm not saying it necessarily compelled him to do the act though, no, but it did have some influence on the action.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
We saw Vader TK the hell out of Sidious's laboratory (the novelization depicts that he did this with the intent of killing Sidious in rage, but simply lacked the power to do it and the script mentions Sidious having to deflect debris with the Force), not to mention the fact that Vader had been thinking of killing Sidious since his first day on the job. Vader hardly brushed Palpatine's culpability under the rug.
Vader wasn't as strong willed there as he should've been then as far as getting back at Sidious. I was going by strictly the movies though when I summed that up, and from the movie it looked like he was TK'ing the lab simply out of rage at himself for what he did, not so much rage directed towards Sidious. But, I figured you would bring up the novel version for what the movie didn't show. Showing Sidious deflecting the debris and stuff on that part would've been epic in the movie though, as opposed to Vader just yelling NOOOOOO!

And I feel it should be pointed out that the TDK novel kind of gives you a better understanding of Dent's thoughts/character/persona too than in the movie, but that usually goes without saying.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Gordon tried to save her life. The Joker ended her life. As for why Dent, who began the movie as Gotham's white knight, should show hesitation or remorse before killing children who had nothing to do with Rachel's death... I should think that would be obvious. To put it in simpler terms, Dent went from Jesus to Judas in the span of five minutes because Satan told him to and never looked back.
While Gordon did try to save her, he also didn't really listen to or cooperate with Harvey beforehand either, so he still had some justification to be pissed at the commissioner and make him suffer some as he did. Leaving the life of Gordon's child to chance was still a bit extreme though, I agree. We've pretty much reached common ground now.

ybrotes_Sargon

Lucas could definitely have done a better job of handling certain elements, but ultimately, I find that Anakin's descent is unquestionably more nuanced and believable than Dent's.

BruceSkywalker

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Bane a lame villain? Somebody is in store for a real surprise.....

Nolan will make us all forget steroid bane

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon

Seriously!??

"I know the Dark Side is evil BUT it will save my wife..."

"I'm going to be a firm but loving father soon....DIE JEDI KIDS DIE!"

ybrotes_Sargon

Seriously.
Satirizing the plot is ultimately pointless when Dent's Heel Face Turn can be lampooned just as hard.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Anakin, unlike Dent, did the right thing initially. Anakin, unlike Dent, was backed into a corner brilliantly by Palpatine. Anakin, unlike Dent, visibly struggled with his morally reproachable deeds. And Anakin, unlike Dent, was grappling with the equivalent of a metaphysical moral drug addiction.

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Seriously.
Satirizing the plot is ultimately pointless when Dent's Heel Face Turn can be lampooned just as hard.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Anakin, unlike Dent, did the right thing initially. Anakin, unlike Dent, was backed into a corner brilliantly by Palpatine. Anakin, unlike Dent, visibly struggled with his morally reproachable deeds. And Anakin, unlike Dent, was grappling with the equivalent of a metaphysical moral drug addiction.

Maybe it just comes down to which actor was more credible in their roles?

I honestly couldn't believe Anakin acting like a spoilt brat would be so pivotal to turning to the Dark Side. Qui Gon & Obi were more like father figures to him & yet his own ego couldn't accept their wisdom.
Anakin struggling with his morally reproachable deeds?
The kid sulked & pouted & blamed everyone but himself for his mother's death. He massacred the Tusken raiders (women & children) long before he was influenced to kill the Jedi kids....you'd think the trauma of killing the Tusken raiders would've stopped him killing any more innocents.
Palpatine didn't push Anakin into any corner...he fed Anakin some lame fairy tale about the power of the Dark Side & the kid lapped it up. Even without being tempted by Palpatine, his own selfish stubborness was tearing him away from Padme & the Jedi Council.
His arrogance was his own downfall.

"Metaphysical moral drug addiction" sounds deep but what the hell are you actually saying?

Whereas Harvey clearly knew right from wrong. Unfortunately he found himself contradicted in Gotham's corrupt legal system. He ultimately had to decide that doing good for the many meant sacrificing what he held dearly to his heart. That was his downfall to Two Face, the inability to do good without getting his hands dirty.

DARTH POWER

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Maybe it just comes down to which actor was more credible in their roles?

I honestly couldn't believe Anakin acting like a spoilt brat would be so pivotal to turning to the Dark Side.

It wasn't really. It was his fear of letting go of his loved ones. The Council actually got the first hint of that in Episode I with his fear of losing his mother. Which is why they rejected his Jedi Padawan application at first.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Qui Gon & Obi were more like father figures to him & yet his own ego couldn't accept their wisdom.

I don't remember him rejecting Qui-Gon's wisdom.

He saw Obi-Wan more as an older brother than a father.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
"Metaphysical moral drug addiction" sounds deep but what the hell are you actually saying?

The way the Dark side of the force is tempting and addictive can only be compared to a drug.

Remember Luke Knew Palpatine was evil from day 1. He knew he was the evil Emporer. He knew Vader was a Sith Lord. And yet he was still tempted by their offer. You see him struggling with his inner self in Return of the Jedi.

NemeBro

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
He saw Obi-Wan more as an older brother than a father. "He's like a father to me."

Robtard

In EP2, Anakin does state: "you're the closest thing I have to a father."

In EP3, Obi Wan states: "I loved you like a brother."

IMO, they were just gay for each other.

DARTH POWER

Originally posted by NemeBro
"He's like a father to me."

It's just a line he said bro. But just look at the way he talks to him compared to the way he talks to say Palpatine.

He treated Obi-Wan like a Brother.

The Clone Wars series makes this a lot more clear. And like Robtard pointed out Obi-Wan says in ROTS "You were my Brother Anakin.."

He saw Palpatine as a Father. Qui-Gon was also a Father type figure to him, even though he only knew him a short time.

Robtard

IMO, Palpatine was more like the creepy uncle with border issues to Anakin.

Nephthys

Yeah, Anakin treats Obi-Wan like a brother alot more than a father. Maybe not in the movies (he does though imo) but definately in the tv show and EU stuff.

NemeBro

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
It's just a line he said bro. But just look at the way he talks to him compared to the way he talks to say Palpatine.

He treated Obi-Wan like a Brother.

The Clone Wars series makes this a lot more clear. And like Robtard pointed out Obi-Wan says in ROTS "You were my Brother Anakin.."

He saw Palpatine as a Father. Qui-Gon was also a Father type figure to him, even though he only knew him a short time. Nigga **** the Clone Wars series, unless you were talking about the awesome animated shorts, not the bullshit right now.

DARTH POWER

Originally posted by NemeBro
Nigga **** the Clone Wars series, unless you were talking about the awesome animated shorts, not the bullshit right now.

Well like it or not the CW series is created and executive produced by Lucas. So it gives us a better insight into the characters.

But personally I think that's how ROTS showed them to be anyway.

NemeBro

Everyone knows that the more involvement Lucas has in a Star Wars project, the less canon it is silly.

Robtard

Originally posted by NemeBro
Everyone knows that the more involvement Lucas has in a Star Wars project, the less canon it is silly.

It's because of people like you that a butthurt Lucas has vowed to never do anything Star Wars again.

NemeBro

Originally posted by Robtard
It's because of people like you that a butthurt Lucas has vowed to never do anything Star Wars again. Good good.

ybrotes_Sargon

Determining which actor gave the more credible performance is entirely subjective.

Elaborate?

I think you may have missed the scene where he breaks down sobbing and ranting in front of Padme. Unlike Dent, who calmly, coldly, ruthlessly seeks to kill a child and torment his father. One visibly struggles; the other does not.

Palpatine absolutely pushed Anakin into a corner. It was Palpatine who allowed Anakin to turn him in, but telepathically reminded Anakin that, should Palpatine die, Anakin's one last hope for Padme's safety would be lost. It was Palpatine who forced Anakin's hand by driving Windu to the point that Windu was willing to kill Palpatine without trial, denying Anakin the chance to question Palpatine further. By attacking Mace Windu, Anakin was complicit in an assault against the Jedi order.

That is the very definition of being backed into a corner.

As I explained exhaustively, the dark side of the Force is a corrupting facet of an all powerful energy field. It transcends sheer psychology. As Darth Power reminded you, Luke went to Endor with full knowledge that Palpatine was evil and yet he still very nearly fell to the dark side in a moment of anger. When a Force user indulges in his passions, particularly baser ones, he taps into a corrupting influence that affects him physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Hence why Yoda claimed that once one starts down the dark path, it forever dominates one's destiny. In that respect, it is quite literally like a drug addiction, beyond what Dent experienced.

Yes, yes, because "chaos is fair" and killing innocent children is right. This is where Anakin and Harvey differ. Anakin didn't rationalize his actions as right (hence his visible struggles throughout the films), he rationalized them as necessary to achieve his goal: being strong enough with the dark side to save Padme. Essentialy, Anakin was more receptive to the moral ramifications of killing innocent children than Dent, who showed no struggle and no remorse.

This is inconsistent with what we saw in the film. Harvey Dent at the beginning of the film would never have advocated the death of innocent children. Harvey Dent at the end of the film assumed the task with sadistic purpose. Punishing a man who tried to save Rachel versus obeying the man who killed her.

It's simply an untenable position. There were metaphysical corrupting forces that grappled with Anakin and yet he still struggled with his decisions and put forth some sort of resistance. Dent, on the other hand, decided in the span of 5 minutes to become a mass murderer without reason, without struggle, and without remorse.

Which might be okay if the film established from the beginning that Dent was a fledgling sociopath. But it didn't. It was inconsistent and irretrievably unjustifiable.

Ridley_Prime

Originally posted by NemeBro
Good good.
I agree, it is good at this point.

edit:
Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Determining which actor gave the more credible performance is entirely subjective.
Yeah well, either way, Aaron Eckhart's an undeniably much better actor than Hayden Christensen. The rest I might respond to later.

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Determining which actor gave the more credible performance is entirely subjective.

Elaborate?

I think you may have missed the scene where he breaks down sobbing and ranting in front of Padme. Unlike Dent, who calmly, coldly, ruthlessly seeks to kill a child and torment his father. One visibly struggles; the other does not.

Palpatine absolutely pushed Anakin into a corner. It was Palpatine who allowed Anakin to turn him in, but telepathically reminded Anakin that, should Palpatine die, Anakin's one last hope for Padme's safety would be lost. It was Palpatine who forced Anakin's hand by driving Windu to the point that Windu was willing to kill Palpatine without trial, denying Anakin the chance to question Palpatine further. By attacking Mace Windu, Anakin was complicit in an assault against the Jedi order.

That is the very definition of being backed into a corner.

As I explained exhaustively, the dark side of the Force is a corrupting facet of an all powerful energy field. It transcends sheer psychology. As Darth Power reminded you, Luke went to Endor with full knowledge that Palpatine was evil and yet he still very nearly fell to the dark side in a moment of anger. When a Force user indulges in his passions, particularly baser ones, he taps into a corrupting influence that affects him physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Hence why Yoda claimed that once one starts down the dark path, it forever dominates one's destiny. In that respect, it is quite literally like a drug addiction, beyond what Dent experienced.

Yes, yes, because "chaos is fair" and killing innocent children is right. This is where Anakin and Harvey differ. Anakin didn't rationalize his actions as right (hence his visible struggles throughout the films), he rationalized them as necessary to achieve his goal: being strong enough with the dark side to save Padme. Essentialy, Anakin was more receptive to the moral ramifications of killing innocent children than Dent, who showed no struggle and no remorse.

This is inconsistent with what we saw in the film. Harvey Dent at the beginning of the film would never have advocated the death of innocent children. Harvey Dent at the end of the film assumed the task with sadistic purpose. Punishing a man who tried to save Rachel versus obeying the man who killed her.

It's simply an untenable position. There were metaphysical corrupting forces that grappled with Anakin and yet he still struggled with his decisions and put forth some sort of resistance. Dent, on the other hand, decided in the span of 5 minutes to become a mass murderer without reason, without struggle, and without remorse.

Which might be okay if the film established from the beginning that Dent was a fledgling sociopath. But it didn't. It was inconsistent and irretrievably unjustifiable.

You know what...I'm gonna come straight out & say I concede in this debate. I really have no interest comparing Anakin to Dent & for that matter too, I don't know where or why this thread led to Star Wars when it started out comparing The Avengers to The Dark Knight...?

ybrotes_Sargon

Ridley_Prime
Yeah well, either way, Aaron Eckhart's an undeniably much better actor than Hayden Christensen. The rest I might respond to later.

No, that too is subjective. {Though I with you.}

Myth

Some of my biggest complaints about the Avengers:

- The army was weak. They damaged the city, but the Avengers themselves never seemed threatened.
- The whale/transport aliens. What kept them afloat? It certainly wasn't their "wings" or any jet propellant. Was it magic? Maybe, but that felt and looked stupid to me. Also, for all the build up around them, they really did nothing but transport other bad guys and bump a building or too, so again, they never really felt like a threat other than they look intimidating.
- Tony Stark calling Pepper Pots and her missing his call. What the f*ck was the point of that? It was probably to set up Iron Man 3 somehow, but within the confines of this movie, it felt incomplete.
- The girl who looks dreamy towards Captain America. Again, probably a set up for a future movie, but felt completely unnecessary in the confines of this movie.
- And not really a complaint, but a better way of bringing Tony back to life at the end would have been Thor using his lightning rather than Hulk screaming him awake. This would was set up perfectly earlier by showing Thor and Iron Man fighting with Thor giving Iron Man's suite an energy boost with the lightning. Perfect foreshadowing to a missed opportunity.

marwash22

lol @ people still saying the Aliens weren't a threat.

RE: Blaxican

From a realistic perspective, they weren't. The fact that Steve, Black Widow and Hawkeye were able to destroy every type of the alien forces sans the giant flying dragon things, is pretty muchall the proof you need that the US Military alone would wipe the floor with them.

-Pr-

Originally posted by Myth
- Tony Stark calling Pepper Pots and her missing his call. What the f*ck was the point of that? It was probably to set up Iron Man 3 somehow, but within the confines of this movie, it felt incomplete.

It was a romantic goodbye because he thought he was about to die. How is it incomplete? Because he didn't make the call?

--

As far as the thread goes, I'd rate Dark Knight as being "technically" a better movie, in terms of writing, acting etc.

I enjoyed Avengers more, though.

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by Myth
Some of my biggest complaints about the Avengers:

- And not really a complaint, but a better way of bringing Tony back to life at the end would have been Thor using his lightning rather than Hulk screaming him awake. This would was set up perfectly earlier by showing Thor and Iron Man fighting with Thor giving Iron Man's suite an energy boost with the lightning. Perfect foreshadowing to a missed opportunity.

You've got to weigh up the odds of what the audience would react to more...

a) Seeing the same scene twice in one movie as in Thor using his lightning on Iron Man OR

b) Pure comic relief from the Hulk. Judging on audience's reaction, everybody lapped up Hulk's comedic relief on screen.

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by marwash22
lol @ people still saying the Aliens weren't a threat.

Seriously, after watching a 2nd viewing, I got the impression that the aliens were simply gathering in numbers & were waiting for further orders...they really didn't come across as a threat.

When they captured those civilians inside the building, it really looked like they didn't know whether to hold them as prisoners, use them as hostages or kill them?

RE: Blaxican

Originally posted by marwash22
no. It's okay, give it a few weeks for the hype to wear off and you'll start seeing sense again.

Aaliyah

I Like to Watch The Avengers Movie Online....

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by Aaliyah
I Like to Watch The Avengers Movie Online....

I'd like to watch YOU online... smokin'

marwash22

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Seriously, after watching a 2nd viewing, I got the impression that the aliens were simply gathering in numbers & were waiting for further orders...they really didn't come across as a threat.

When they captured those civilians inside the building, it really looked like they didn't know whether to hold them as prisoners, use them as hostages or kill them? Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It's okay, give it a few weeks for the hype to wear off and you'll start seeing sense again. they were a threat to humankind.

The entire reason for the team being assembled was to deal with the problem, (or threat), that we as ordinary humans couldn't; the aliens weren't meant to be a threat to the Avengers.

Using the performance of Widow, Hawkeye and Cap as reasoning as to why the military would have been enough is ridiculous because the military is not comprised of thousands of master assassins and super soldiers; the military is a bunch of regular dudes with guns. erm

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by marwash22
they were a threat to humankind.

The entire reason for the team being assembled was to deal with the problem, (or threat), that we as ordinary humans couldn't; the aliens weren't meant to be a threat to the Avengers.

Using the performance of Widow, Hawkeye and Cap as reasoning as to why the military would have been enough is ridiculous because the military is not comprised of thousands of master assassins and super soldiers; the military is a bunch of regular dudes with guns. erm

Also, Widow, Cap and Hawkeye did fine against the individual aliens, but not one of them did (or could have) taken out even one of the Leviathans. Ordinary military personal would have fared much worse than those three did.

There is absolutely no way in hell the military would have been able to contain he invasion like the Avengers did; that leads to another thing people tried to say. "The military had nukes and that would have worked". Sure, that would have worked; they would have killed the aliens along with millions of human beings and caused the entire city to be unlivable. And since the military wouldn't have been able to contain the invasion in the same manner the Avengers did, they would have had to launch more nukes which would have led to Earth being devastated... how exactly is that winning or solving the problem.

Oh yeah... and even after launching all those nukes, there would still be aliens on the other side of the portal continuing to invade and the military, even if they had time between fending off the invasion, would have no idea how to shut the portal down.

So basically, the military would have to resort to mass murder of their own people and complete planetary destruction, all of which wouldn't even stop the attack... but the aliens weren't a threat. lol sure thing.

The Avengers were brought together to deal solely with Loki in the first place, something "ordinary people" couldn't.
Yes SHIELD knew Loki was amassing an army of aliens to invade but they were confident enough that capturing Loki would avert his plans of invasion altogether.

No, the army isn't compromised of "thousands of assassins" or super soldiers but the sheer numbers of any military force armed to the teeth with state of the art weaponery would've easily achieved more than Cap, Hawkeye & Black Widow on their own or together as a team. You're not taking into account that Hawkeye was rendered useless once he ran out of arrows. Same with Black widow. She was clearly getting exhausted & only went up against the aliens with a single gun & x-amount of ammunition. While Cap, even though was a "super soldier" showed signs of tiring & couldn't be everywhere at once.
You're really simplifying when you describe the army as "a bunch of guys with guns." The amount of arsenal alone would've put the Avengers to shame against an alien invasion.

What would've been to the army's advantage also was the size of the wormhole & how the aliens had to line up & wait to get through.

The Hulk took down one Leviathan with a single punch. This would easily equate to a small squadron of armed military with RPG's aiming at the exact same target to bring a Leviathan down.

As far as nuking a city full of civilians, well history shows that was pretty effective in Hiroshima. Not to mention every other post-appocalytpic movie ever made. The use of nukes was never to solve a problem but to push the point across that humanity would rather destroy itself than live enslaved.

So yeah if you watch the movie again, the aliens weren't much of a threat, they were seen gathering in numbers, clearly waiting for orders to be given. There was no mass killings of humans nor not much of property damage either.
Hell, compare this invasion to ID4 , Cloverfield, SkyLine or even World Of The Worlds. People were massacred in these movies as well as whole blocks of cities razed to the ground.

-Pr-

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The Avengers were brought together to deal solely with Loki in the first place, something "ordinary people" couldn't.
Yes SHIELD knew Loki was amassing an army of aliens to invade but they were confident enough that capturing Loki would avert his plans of invasion altogether.
No, the army isn't compromised of "thousands of assassins" or super soldiers but the sheer numbers of any military force armed to the teeth with state of the art weaponery would've easily achieved more than Cap, Hawkeye & Black Widow on their own or together as a team. You're not taking into account that Hawkeye was rendered useless once he ran out of arrows. Same with Black widow. She was clearly getting exhausted & only went up against the aliens with a single gun & x-amount of ammunition. While Cap, even though was a "super soldier" showed signs of tiring & couldn't be everywhere at once.
What would've been to the army's advantage also was the size of the wormhole & how the aliens had to line up & wait to get through.

The Hulk took down one Leviathan with a single punch. This would easily equate to a small squadron of armed military with RPG's aiming at the exact same target to bring a Leviathan down.

As far as nuking a city full of civilians, well history shows that was pretty effective in Hiroshima. Not to mention every other post-appocalytpic movie ever made. The use of nukes was never to solve a problem but to push the point across that humanity would rather destroy itself than live enslaved.

So yeah if you watch the movie again, the aliens weren't much of a threat, they were seen gathering in numbers, clearly waiting for orders to be given. There was no mass killings of humans nor not much of property damage either.
Hell, compare this invasion to ID4 , Cloverfield, SkyLine or even World Of The Worlds.

iron man hit the leviathan with missiles, and they didn't even scratch it's hide. RPGs? Seriously?

marwash22

lol. I've said all I'm gonna say on the subject.

Robtard

LoL, you people. That was essentially the first wave; look at the damage a very small army did in a matter of minutes.

Without the Avengers, the gate wouldn't have closed and the Chirtuari would have kept on coming, Loki planned on enslaving the entire planet, he's not doing it with a dozen transport ships, several score of fliers and a few hundred ground troops.

Only reason the Avengers won, cos doctor man built in a fail-safe, so he essentially saved the planet.

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by -Pr-
iron man hit the leviathan with missiles, and they didn't even scratch it's hide. RPGs? Seriously?

Okay let's not lose sight that we're debating fictitious super heroes & their powers here....

Now are you comparing Iron Man's mini mini shoulder missiles to an RPG?

It's like comparing darts to canon balls.

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, you people. That was essentially the first wave; look at the damage a very small army did in a matter of minutes.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Evidence & fact that I saw in the movie NOT surmising what would've or could've happened afterwards.

What we saw on the big screen was the first wave of aliens NOT mass murdering hundreds of people & NOT doing any serious collateral damage. No buildings were crushed to the ground...only several floors to a scraper had their office windows smashed by a Leviathan's fin. Even the dead Leviathan crashing on top of another building didn't collapse the structure.

-Pr-

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Okay let's not lose sight that we're debating fictitious super heroes & their powers here....

Now are you comparing Iron Man's mini mini shoulder missiles to an RPG?

It's like comparing darts to canon balls.

Iron Man's "mini" missiles, were enough to puncture tank armour, and to completely obliterate a few dozen chitauri speeder things.

I really don't see why he, being one of the premier weapons designers in the world, would make missiles for his suit that were worse than something that an arab terrorist would have lying around.

marwash22

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, you people. That was essentially the first wave; look at the damage a very small army did in a matter of minutes.

Without the Avengers, the gate wouldn't have closed and the Chirtuari would have kept on coming, Loki planned on enslaving the entire planet, he's not doing it with a dozen transport ships, several score of fliers and a few hundred ground troops.

Only reason the Avengers won, cos doctor man built in a fail-safe, so he essentially saved the planet. whoa, whoa, whoa! what do you mean, YOU PEOPLE?! sneer

Esau Cairn

Like I said, we're debating fictitious characters & their make- believe weapons here...

Puncturing tank armour doesn't mean it's going to do any further damage afterwards.

And even an air rifle can damage a motor bike...

DARTH POWER

I'm confused, what exactly would the army have done?

You guys do realize that was just the first wave of the alien invasion right?

All BW and CA were doing was dealing with the ground troops. Yes a whole army of US troops would be better, but where were they? They can't just instantly teleport there. And by the time they got there in big enough numbers, the Aliens numbers would have been too much.

I think it would have taken way too much fire power of the military to take down even 1 Levathian ship.

And Lol @ Iron Man's arsenal being weaker than standard military arsenal!

Oh and nice call about Nuke's being us saying we'd rather die than be enslaved.. Yeah easy for the guy pulling the trigger to say!

But I'm sure the people in the city would prefer the Avengers defeating the Aliens then the damn military coming in and Nuking them all! Lol

-Pr-

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Like I said, we're debating fictitious characters & their make- believe weapons here...

Puncturing tank armour doesn't mean it's going to do any further damage afterwards.

And even an air rifle can damage a motor bike...

So you genuinely think a bunch of rpgs was a more impressive arsenal than what Tony could bring to bear?

Placidity

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

But I'm sure the people in the city would prefer the Avengers defeating the Aliens then the damn military coming in and Nuking them all! Lol

The luxury of preference is not the issue here. US armed forces would've defeated the Aliens. Sure there would've been more casualties, no one has argued against that.

Once mobilized, the first wave would've been easily dispatched by the air force, or a surgical strike. Individual aliens running around could be taken care of by infantry.

The US armed forces could deal with the bottle-necking the portal much better than Thor did. Send a nuke through there and mamma mia.

Heck, Russia or China (or together) taking on US would be a much larger threat than the Aliens even excluding nukes.

Oh yea and we're just talking real-life military, movie military would do better, and SHIELD should have all sorts of high tech weapons that they just forgot about.

Originally posted by -Pr-
So you genuinely think a bunch of rpgs was a more impressive arsenal than what Tony could bring to bear?

Not RPGs, but the military definitely has greater fire power. Do I believe Stark could do better? Sure, but he didn't show it in the film.

As for dealing with tanks, say hello to the Javelin (portable missile)

6qHL7jET8Gc

But seriously guys, stop low-balling your own military laughing

dadudemon

Originally posted by Nephthys
Trololololol!

If you're going to troll, then kindly see your way out of the thread.

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Lucas could definitely have done a better job of handling certain elements, but ultimately, I find that Anakin's descent is unquestionably more nuanced and believable than Dent's.

I agree.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Seriously!??

"I know the Dark Side is evil BUT it will save my wife..."

"I'm going to be a firm but loving father soon....DIE JEDI KIDS DIE!"

That comparison doesn't even work as a mischaracterization.

"I see visions of my wife dying. I'm losing my mind as this shit happened with my mother, too."

*Is manipulated by Sidious*

*After years of a slow decent to the dark side, finally loses his shit and chooses his attachment to Padme rather than taking Sidious in*

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
edit:

Yeah well, either way, Aaron Eckhart's an undeniably much better actor than Hayden Christensen. The rest I might respond to later.

Um, yes, this.

Bardock42

Originally posted by ybrotes_Sargon
Lucas could definitely have done a better job of handling certain elements, but ultimately, I find that Anakin's descent is unquestionably more nuanced and believable than Dent's.

lol ide

-Pr-

Originally posted by Placidity
The luxury of preference is not the issue here. US armed forces would've defeated the Aliens. Sure there would've been more casualties, no one has argued against that.

Once mobilized, the first wave would've been easily dispatched by the air force, or a surgical strike. Individual aliens running around could be taken care of by infantry.

The US armed forces could deal with the bottle-necking the portal much better than Thor did. Send a nuke through there and mamma mia.

Heck, Russia or China (or together) taking on US would be a much larger threat than the Aliens even excluding nukes.

Oh yea and we're just talking real-life military, movie military would do better, and SHIELD should have all sorts of high tech weapons that they just forgot about.

Not RPGs, but the military definitely has greater fire power. Do I believe Stark could do better? Sure, but he didn't show it in the film.

As for dealing with tanks, say hello to the Javelin (portable missile)

6qHL7jET8Gc

But seriously guys, stop low-balling your own military laughing

it's not my military. i just fail to see how you can argue that the current military could take out that foes that powerful when the only thing that did take them down was extremely advanced tech or brute force.

and no, i don't consider the javelin to be superior to what stark had in his arsenal.

Placidity

Originally posted by -Pr-
foes that powerful

That's what people are disputing, going by common sense I might add.

Originally posted by -Pr-
when the only thing that did take them down was extremely advanced tech or brute force.

So that's the argument - Avengers took them down so that shows that the military couldn't have?

Originally posted by -Pr-
and no, i don't consider the javelin to be superior to what stark had in his arsenal.

I was just comparing Stark taking out the tank and your comment about RPGs. You do know the military has more powerful weapons and missiles than the Javelin right? So you think Stark has more firepower than the entire US arsenal? I can't begin to imagine how you can genuinely believe that but I don't think we're going to agree.

-Pr-

Originally posted by Placidity
That's what people are disputing, going by common sense I might add.

So that's the argument - Avengers took them down so that shows that the military couldn't have?

I was just comparing Stark taking out the tank and your comment about RPGs. You do know the military has more powerful weapons and missiles than the Javelin right? So you think Stark has more firepower than the entire US arsenal? I can't begin to imagine how you can genuinely believe that but I don't think we're going to agree.

I never said that the military couldn't have. My argument was that Stark, a weapons manufacturer that actually supplied the US military at some point, and built the Iron Man suit itself, is somehow weaker than what the US military can bring to bear in that kind of fight? Or is less effective than some guys with RPGs?

Yes, i know they have better than the javelin. But if we're talking weapons of mass destruction here, that sort of defeats the purpose of the entire argument.

Placidity

Originally posted by -Pr-
I never said that the military couldn't have.

OK, I read someone else say that then, and assumed you were in the same boat.

Originally posted by -Pr-
My argument was that Stark, a weapons manufacturer that actually supplied the US military at some point, and built the Iron Man suit itself, is somehow weaker than what the US military can bring to bear in that kind of fight?

In terms of fire-power, absolutely. Imagine hundreds of missiles being launched by battleships, submarines, mobile silos, aircraft, tanks etc into the heart of the portal. Stark couldn't replicate that.

No one is saying Iron Man isn't an effective weapon, in fact he is probably the single most effective weapon. Key word is single, not against the entire military, and not when the goal is to destroy.

Originally posted by -Pr-

Yes, i know they have better than the javelin. But if we're talking weapons of mass destruction here, that sort of defeats the purpose of the entire argument.

Well, even before going into WMDs, there are missiles/bombs that have yields greater than Stark's.

And we aren't even having the same argument lol. I was responding to people who said the Aliens would've taken over the world were it not for the Avengers.

-Pr-

Originally posted by Placidity
OK, I read someone else say that then, and assumed you were in the same boat.

In terms of fire-power, absolutely. Imagine hundreds of missiles being launched by battleships, submarines, mobile silos, aircraft, tanks etc into the heart of the portal. Stark couldn't replicate that.

No one is saying Iron Man isn't an effective weapon, in fact he is probably the single most effective weapon. Key word is single, not against the entire military, and not when the goal is to destroy.

Well, even before going into WMDs, there are missiles/bombs that have yields greater than Stark's.

And we aren't even having the same argument lol. I was responding to people who said the Aliens would've taken over the world were it not for the Avengers.

so they're just going to fire everything in to the portal? why do that when the streets are covered in chitauri warriors?

Placidity

Originally posted by -Pr-
so they're just going to fire everything in to the portal? why do that when the streets are covered in chitauri warriors?

I was talking about the portal because that would seem like the biggest problem especially when people claim the alien reinforcements would've been limitless.

You don't think the military (infantry, armored vehicles, aircraft) would've dealt with the relatively few aliens riding on space bikes? F-22s alone would've chewed them up. What if say China sent in 1000 aircraft fighters into that same city, would it have been the end for America?

DARTH POWER

Originally posted by Placidity
The luxury of preference is not the issue here.

Of course that's an issue. Sure we can destroy aliens and ourselves and pretty much everything all day with Nukes.

But exactly how does that save the People??

Originally posted by Placidity
US armed forces would've defeated the Aliens.

You still haven't proved or quantified how much force it would take to destroy even One Levathian Vessel.

Originally posted by Placidity
Sure there would've been more casualties, no one has argued against that.

When we're talking Nukes it won't just be "more" casualties. Your talking about mass murdering a large US Population, just to take out the first Wave of Alien forces.

Originally posted by Placidity
The US armed forces could deal with the bottle-necking the portal much better than Thor did.

How exactly?

Originally posted by Placidity
Send a nuke through there and mamma mia.

Where will the Nuke be shot from exactly?

And will it be precise enough to go through the portal, from where ever it was shot from?

Originally posted by Placidity
Heck, Russia or China (or together) taking on US would be a much larger threat than the Aliens even excluding nukes.

You mean the whole Chinese military would be a larger threat than one wave of aliens with only one narrow portal to come through. Sure.

Could the military have disposed of that first wave by blowing up New York to Kingdom come. Sure. Then the second wave would come through wink

What's next guys, the Military didn't need the help of the Autobots in Transformers because they could Nuke, or Carpet Bomb any city the Deceptacons go to wink

-Pr-

Originally posted by Placidity
I was talking about the portal because that would seem like the biggest problem especially when people claim the alien reinforcements would've been limitless.

You don't think the military (infantry, armored vehicles, aircraft) would've dealt with the relatively few aliens riding on space bikes? F-22s alone would've chewed them up. What if say China sent in 1000 aircraft fighters into that same city, would it have been the end for America?

See, I don't agree lol. I think it would have been hard to establish air superiority against enemies that were capable of better maneuverability (yes, even with bad banking), and weapons strong enough to shoot planes out of the sky.

plus, the sheer numbers too.

and what would they hit the leviathans with?

Placidity

Originally posted by -Pr-
See, I don't agree lol. I think it would have been hard to establish air superiority against enemies that were capable of better maneuverability (yes, even with bad banking), and weapons strong enough to shoot planes out of the sky.

plus, the sheer numbers too.

US Air force have much larger numbers.

Maneuverability is debatable, but not very relevant once a missile is locked on.

I'm not saying the air force won't suffer losses, I'm sure they will.

Originally posted by -Pr-
and what would they hit the leviathans with?.

Missiles from bombers, gunships etc etc. All carry a higher yield than what Hulk/Thor has shown (except for that one-shot, that was pretty boss). Same story. Probably the same story you're going to disagree with smile

NemeBro

What "practical" military weapons (Aka so not nukes or MOABs) have shown to rival Thor's power output? The Javelin certainly is pussy shit in comparison.

Hulk also sort of halted the forward momentum of one of the leviathans with a punch. Those things were like flying multi-story buildings. Only probably heavier. Hulk's punch would have had a force in I'm guessing the multiple thousands of tons. Aka much stronger than a few RPGs.

Placidity

Originally posted by NemeBro
What "practical" military weapons (Aka so not nukes or MOABs) have shown to rival Thor's power output? The Javelin certainly is pussy shit in comparison.

Dude, the Javelin is a freaking man-portable missile, you're right it is pussy shit in comparison to a "real" missile.

Which particular attack did Thor show in the Avengers did you feel was the best?

For me it was the lightning he summoned on Stark Tower. That attack was just frying the ships, it didn't destroy it on impact or anything that impressive from a destructive standpoint.

You don't think the kinetic energy from 10 or 50 or 100 or 1000 missiles would've been greater?

Here is just what ONE can do:

pEN6l4OVPnQ

xzF6aMnFqf8

Remember, ONE.

That's besides the point anyway, we aren't discussing US vs Avengers.

What do you mean by "practical"? The US would use any and all force necessary to eliminate the threat.

Originally posted by NemeBro

Hulk also sort of halted the forward momentum of one of the leviathans with a punch. Those things were like flying multi-story buildings. Only probably heavier. Hulk's punch would have had a force in I'm guessing the multiple thousands of tons. Aka much stronger than a few RPGs.

Ok, so Hulk's punch was strong...?

I've already addressed this red herring several times... what the Avengers displayed is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The discussion is the military could've defeated the aliens.

Placidity

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Of course that's an issue. Sure we can destroy aliens and ourselves and pretty much everything all day with Nukes.

No that is the point, and no nukes are necessarily.

What are you arguing exactly?

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

You still haven't proved or quantified how much force it would take to destroy even One Levathian Vessel.

"Still" haven't? Did you ask me to?

Maybe you should do that. Seems reasonable right?

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

When we're talking Nukes it won't just be "more" casualties. Your talking about mass murdering a large US Population, just to take out the first Wave of Alien forces.

If you haven't noticed, I have been talking about non-nuclear avenues for quite a while now. Nuke is still an option though. And no, that's not called "mass murdering".

Right now I'm just pointing out errors in your post, I don't know how to reply to you because I don't even know what you are arguing for.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

How exactly?

Already answered.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Where will the Nuke be shot from exactly?

And will it be precise enough to go through the portal, from where ever it was shot from?

Could be shot from many places. Yes it is precise enough.

Lol, you know by asking questions like this it shows how unaware you are of US's military weapons and technology?

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

You mean the whole Chinese military would be a larger threat than one wave of aliens with only one narrow portal to come through. Sure.

Glad you agree.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

What's next guys, the Military didn't need the help of the Autobots in Transformers because they could Nuke, or Carpet Bomb any city the Deceptacons go to wink

Decepticons would've ripped the Chitauri apart. Blackout alone took out a military base. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Again, what EXACTLY are you arguing for, or are you just mad people have criticisms of the film? I honestly don't think you have a position, you're just keen on disagreeing with whatever you read.

DARTH POWER

Originally posted by Placidity
No that is the point, and no nukes are necessarily.

What are you arguing exactly?

That the military could not have defended the city. Only blown the city to Kingdom Come. Which still would not have stopped more reinforcements coming through.

Loki could have just opened the portal in another city. No where on Earth would be safe.

Originally posted by Placidity
"Still" haven't? Did you ask me to?

Maybe you should do that. Seems reasonable right?

LOL Your the one claiming they would be no match for the US Military!

So I think if your going to claim that, you should present proof of how easily they would be destroyed by military weapons.

Originally posted by Placidity
If you haven't noticed, I have been talking about non-nuclear avenues for quite a while now. Nuke is still an option though. And no, that's not called "mass murdering".

You've got to be a military brat to claim that's not mass murder.

Originally posted by Placidity
Right now I'm just pointing out errors in your post, I don't know how to reply to you because I don't even know what you are arguing for.

What's so difficult to understand? Your arguing Mass Destroy the city. Which wouldn't do anything except kill a few Chitari soldiers and mass murder an entire city.

You haven't even proven that would destroy their most powerful vessels.

That doesn't stop Loki opening a portal anywhere else in the world Yes you can destroy that city too. Loki will laugh in your face as you just go around destroying all your own cities.

Originally posted by Placidity
Already answered.

What by shooting a Nuke there? I thought you just claimed your not talking about Nukes anymore??

Originally posted by Placidity
Could be shot from many places. Yes it is precise enough.

Lol, you know by asking questions like this it shows how unaware you are of US's military weapons and technology?

So are you saying the Shield agent could have just shot the Nuke into the hole? Well I'd say that's more of a reasonable plot hole to bring up than the ones your bringing up.

Yes I'm accepting your knowledge of military capability. What I'm not accepting is your notion that the Avengers were not needed because we could just Destroy the city?!

And I definitely don't agree with your military brat training telling you throwing a Nuke is NOT MASS MURDER.

I'm sure if a terroist group Nuked your home city in "defense of their homeland" you would call it just that.

Originally posted by Placidity
Decepticons would've ripped the Chitauri apart. Blackout alone took out a military base. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Yeah big claims from a guy who still hasn't proven how much firepower it would take to destroy their ships.

And no, I don't have to ask you to prove that. Your making the claim, so you should at least have the sense to provide proof of your claim especially when I'm not the first person to bring up that they may not be able to destroy one of those Larger vessels.

Originally posted by Placidity
Again, what EXACTLY are you arguing for, or are you just mad people have criticisms of the film? I honestly don't think you have a position, you're just keen on disagreeing with whatever you read.

Actually I think it's you whose getting mad at the idea that the Military isn't Invincible.

Yes the military has a lot of mass destroying power. Doesn't help you do much.

Cant' save the city like that.

The whole idea that the Avengers wern't required because WMD's could wipe out the city is just a retarded observation.

But one I'd expect from someone who claims Nuking a populated city is Not Mass Murder!

ybrotes_Sargon

Originally posted by Bardock42
lol ide

I definitely agree? no expression

NemeBro

Originally posted by Placidity Dude, the Javelin is a freaking man-portable missile, you're right it is pussy shit in comparison to a "real" missile.

Which particular attack did Thor show in the Avengers did you feel was the best?

For me it was the lightning he summoned on Stark Tower. That attack was just frying the ships, it didn't destroy it on impact or anything that impressive from a destructive standpoint.

You don't think the kinetic energy from 10 or 50 or 100 or 1000 missiles would've been greater?

You are aware that lightning bolts aren't exactly known for their whopping kinetic energy, right?

And Thor's two best feats are the Jotunheim smash from Thor, and the lightning spray, for two different reasons.

And it one-shot three of the leviathans and kept any more aliens from emerging from the portal.

Thor's Jotunheim smash and lightning spray are frankly more impressive.

The United States despite the movie's insistence isn't actually all that keen on firing missiles on their own cities, though sure I guess they could go ahead and do that.

But would that actually close the portal?

Very strong, yes.

The aliens were destroying a city within an hour, and would have succeeded were it not for the Avengers holding the line.

Would the nuke have bewmed the alien threat? Maybe. But the aliens would have poured out in greater numbers with virtually no resistance for a good while were it not for the Avengers boyo.

RE: Blaxican

I love it when people who literally don't know shit about the military or its capabilities making sweeping gestures about it.

Stay losing, KMC. Stay losing.

Robtard

Pretty sure the purpose of The Counsel deciding to launch a nuke was to illustrate the threat level the aliens posed; you certainly don't nuke if the National Guard can handle the situation.

BruceSkywalker

Placidity

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty sure the purpose of The Counsel deciding to launch a nuke was to illustrate the threat level the aliens posed; you certainly don't nuke if the National Guard can handle the situation.

Originally posted by Placidity
I don't get it, the fact that a character in the film states something means we as the audience have to throw away our rational thinking? They resorted to nuking the city because it was the easiest solution when dealing with unknown entities. The military could have handled it fine.

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).

Placidity

Originally posted by NemeBro
You are aware that lightning bolts aren't exactly known for their whopping kinetic energy, right?

Actually that is exactly what lightning is when it strikes...

Originally posted by NemeBro

And Thor's two best feats are the Jotunheim smash from Thor, and the lightning spray, for two different reasons.

Well the smash wasn't featured in The Avengers, therefore was not necessary for victory. I've already discussed the lightning arc.

Originally posted by NemeBro

The United States despite the movie's insistence isn't actually all that keen on firing missiles on their own cities, though sure I guess they could go ahead and do that.

Actually in the film they went one further with a nuke.

Originally posted by NemeBro

But would that actually close the portal?

Hard to say. SHIELD would figure it out IMO.

Originally posted by NemeBro

And it one-shot three of the leviathans and kept any more aliens from emerging from the portal.

I don't believe it did. The leviathans were not destroyed in that sense, they were getting "fried". And Aliens definitely did make it through in spite of the lightning. Also I don't know why you call it "one-shot" when he was continuously using that attack.

Originally posted by NemeBro

Thor's Jotunheim smash and lightning spray are frankly more impressive.

Wow. I'm assuming (hoping) you meant more impressive than ONE of those missiles. I explicitly reminded you of that TWICE, in bold. So you believe any one of Thor's attacks would do more damage than any number of missiles the US can deliver (excluding nukes and MOAB)? I am eager to debate with you on this in Movie Vs.

Originally posted by NemeBro

Very strong, yes.

Don't you mean very very strong, or very very very strong? Pointless.

Originally posted by NemeBro

The aliens were destroying a city within an hour, and would have succeeded were it not for the Avengers holding the line.

It's possible you are right. I don't recall arguing that.

Originally posted by NemeBro

Would the nuke have bewmed the alien threat? Maybe. But the aliens would have poured out in greater numbers with virtually no resistance for a good while were it not for the Avengers boyo.

No, the nuke should've been shot through the portal to begin with, wiping them out. As I said SHIELD would've likely dealt with the portal.

dadudemon

Originally posted by NemeBro
Only probably heavier. Hulk's punch would have had a force in I'm guessing the multiple thousands of tons.

Much less than that.

A hundred to a couple of hundred tonnes of force (tonne-force).

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by marwash22

Using the performance of Widow, Hawkeye and Cap as reasoning as to why the military would have been enough is ridiculous because the military is not comprised of thousands of master assassins and super soldiers; the military is a bunch of regular dudes with guns. erm

Also, Widow, Cap and Hawkeye did fine against the individual aliens, but not one of them did (or could have) taken out even one of the Leviathans. Ordinary military personal would have fared much worse than those three did.

When strangers debate on the internet, the topic quickly loses its focus or intention. The entire debate started with Marwash stating that Widow, Hawkeye & Cap alone WERE a BETTER match against the aliens compared to what the military could do.

It was never about COMPARING the ENTIRE AVENGERS with the US Army Versus the Chitauri.

The faults I pointed out w/Marwash was that Widow went into battle armed with ONLY a single handgun against the aliens. There was no suggestion whatsoever in the movie that she carried any more ammunition than what was already loaded in her gun. Her costume lent no hint that she carried multiple clips.
Hence once she ran out of bullets, she was pretty much useless....COMPARED to a military force that carried x-amount of ammunition, not to mention various arsenals, NOT JUST HAND GUNS.

The same with Hawkeye...once he ran out of arrows, all he had was his bow to whack out the aliens AS OPPOSED to a military force armed with x-amount of weapons & ammunition.
It was lucky for Hawkeye that he ran out of arrows towards the END OF THE MOVIE & NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BATTLE/INVASION otherwise he would've been rooted.

Although both Widow & Hawkeye were trained assassins, they were still humans & the film did show they were both becoming exhausted & over whelmed by the sheer numbers of the aliens COMPARED to a relentless attack by the military.

The same with Cap. He throws his shield inside the building then gets blown out the window onto the street before he has a chance to retrieve the shield...HENCE he was weaponless against the aliens. Lucky the focus then went on to IronMan chasing the nuke....OTHERWISE you'd have a weaponless Cap, Widow & Hawkeye, all three exhausted to stand ground against the aliens.

This is why I said to Marwash that it was pretty farfetched that he thought these 3 Avengers alone were better than a military force.

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by -Pr-
So you genuinely think a bunch of rpgs was a more impressive arsenal than what Tony could bring to bear?

Maybe RPGs was the wrong type of weapon to compare to Iron Man's arsenal....

(I make no claim that I'm familiar with the names/terms of today's military arsenal)

I'm just stating the obvious in Iron Man's suit design. Everything is compact, there is little room to carry & store a multitude of projectiles.

Seriously how many mini-missiles do you think he can carry on each shoulder before it becomes a ridiculous notion?

dadudemon

Just saw this post:

Originally posted by -Pr-
So you genuinely think a bunch of rpgs was a more impressive arsenal than what Tony could bring to bear?

Oh yeah, for sure. There's no doubt. What Stark can bring pales greatly in comparison to a bunch of RPGs. Stark is one "person" with limited arsenal. His repulsers are quite awesome, but aren't as destructive as a single RPG.

Esau Cairn

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I'm confused, what exactly would the army have done?

You guys do realize that was just the first wave of the alien invasion right?

All BW and CA were doing was dealing with the ground troops. Yes a whole army of US troops would be better, but where were they? They can't just instantly teleport there. And by the time they got there in big enough numbers, the Aliens numbers would have been too much.

I think it would have taken way too much fire power of the military to take down even 1 Levathian ship.

And Lol @ Iron Man's arsenal being weaker than standard military arsenal!

Oh and nice call about Nuke's being us saying we'd rather die than be enslaved.. Yeah easy for the guy pulling the trigger to say!

But I'm sure the people in the city would prefer the Avengers defeating the Aliens then the damn military coming in and Nuking them all! Lol

Yes, it was the 1st wave. That's all the movie focussed on.
And it was a pretty lame invasion...no mass killings of civilians, minimal property damage.The chitauri just seemed content to hang off the sides of the buildings & get picked off.

As far as where were the troops....well it was a tangent Whedon obviously didn't want to use.
But compare it to Cloverfield, ID4 & possibly Battle LA...the troops were able to "materialise" within hours of the invasion. I mean in Cloverfield, where do you get a battalion of tanks into the heart of New York within hours of that creature turning up?

As for those Leviathan ships...they were clearly living reptilian creatures covered in armour plating used as a transport vehicle.
The plating had gaps exposing their flesh, especially when the Chitauri was being deployed.
Any type of ammunition would have injured them.

And my point of Iron Man's arsenal IS NOT that it's weaker than a standard military army...my point is Iron Man is limited to the amount he can carry compared to the army.

Lastly, the term "nuclear detergent", the threat of it clearly worked in the 1st Transformers, The Sum Of All Fears, Hunt For Red October, James Bond...the number of other movies is endless in theme. While in real life & history, the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima (killing innocents) kinda prove its point...and yeah a guy did push a button/pull a lever to make that happen.

-Pr-

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just saw this post:

Oh yeah, for sure. There's no doubt. What Stark can bring pales greatly in comparison to a bunch of RPGs. Stark is one "person" with limited arsenal. His repulsers are quite awesome, but aren't as destructive as a single RPG.

And to think, I once had respect for you. sad

DARTH POWER

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

As far as where were the troops....well it was a tangent Whedon obviously didn't want to use.
But compare it to Cloverfield, ID4 & possibly Battle LA...the troops were able to "materialise" within hours of the invasion. I mean in Cloverfield, where do you get a battalion of tanks into the heart of New York within hours of that creature turning up?

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!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just saw this post:

Oh yeah, for sure. There's no doubt. What Stark can bring pales greatly in comparison to a bunch of RPGs. Stark is one "person" with limited arsenal. His repulsers are quite awesome, but aren't as destructive as a single RPG.

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.

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.

Fury specifically states they are out gunned.

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.

Hulk has shown he can take heavy fire from airplanes, RPGs rather easily.

Loki himself was bullet proof.

The whole point was that it took everything the Avengers could muster including ****ing huge amounts of lightning and Hulk to remotely contain the Alien Force, and had they not been able to close the portal they would have been over run.

Kazenji

Like i didn't see this happening, people nit picking the shit out of the Avengers movie.

Placidity

Originally posted by Kazenji
Like i didn't see this happening, people nit picking the shit out of the Avengers movie.

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.

Simple comments like "aliens should've been stronger" hardly need to be attacked. No movie is perfect, ANY movie review contains criticisms, so unless you thought The Avengers was 10/10, you shouldn't accuse others of "nit-picking", it makes you sound like a fanboy, and that type of attitude is just going to make this discussion even more antagonistic (and thats to everyone).

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

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.

Robtard

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).
At the time the nuke was called, most of the Avengers were at their worst, Thor was noticeable damaged from Loki's dagger, Hulk was in some pain from the barrage, Captain A was visibly tired and hurt from taking one in the gut, Hawkeye was out of ammo, Natasha seemed winded and Iron Man seemed okay.

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?

Newjak

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. Then what is being discussed might I ask if I'm wrong on that?

Mr Parker

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.

Esau Cairn

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?

Esau Cairn

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.

Esau Cairn

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...

dadudemon

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. sad

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?

BruceSkywalker

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.

thumb up