Gonna See it Tonight! It it really as good as it looks? :oIt gives The Dark Knight a run for its money.
i just got back from it and thought it was good . . the start was a little slow for my taste . . . i just about died laughing when the hulk beat the tar out loki
def worth the 8 dollars i paid to get in
The Avengers set the record for 2nd highest opening day venue. Not even close to number one though.
Nahhh... best line in the movie can't be posted on here hahahahaha.The Avengers set the record for 2nd highest opening day venue. Not even close to number one though.
Are you kidding? It was only 9 mil behind.
Just got back from watching it in IMAX 3D. Seriously, you would be doing this movie a SERIOUS injustice if you do not watch it in 3D.
Also completely blows Batman out of the water.
Best line in the movie?
It did not blow Batman out of the water. It was good but TDK was amazing. I don't think another superhero movie will ever beat it.
What was the number one movie anyways? Was it The Dark Knight?
Feel free to explain how stupid I am and all the things I missed.
FWIW The Thor thing is just a problem with timing, Thor 2 is supposed to show how he gets back to earth which I why I don't understand why they released The Avengers first.
I haven't seen Avengers yet, but I didn't think TDK was so uber awesome like some of you guys seem to. It was a good movie for sure, but it wasn't super spectacular or anything.
*prepares to be tar and feathered*
The Dark Knight, from an artistic standpoint, is inarguably the better superhero movie ever made.
QuoteThe Dark Knight, from an artistic standpoint, is inarguably the better superhero movie ever made.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
FWIW, my favorite superhero movie ever was Batman Begins, with TDK coming in at second.You'll have to explain at MN state...
QuoteThe Dark Knight, from an artistic standpoint, is inarguably the better superhero movie ever made.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I agree, it is obviously not inarguably better, or else people wouldn't be arguing the other way. I for one when I saw TDK didn't see this "GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME" I kept hearing that TDK was (although I think it was a very good movie), and I personally like the Avengers more.
FWIW, my favorite superhero movie ever was Batman Begins, with TDK coming in at second.You'll have to explain at MN state...
QuoteThe Dark Knight, from an artistic standpoint, is inarguably the better superhero movie ever made.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.QuoteI agree, it is obviously not inarguably better, or else people wouldn't be arguing the other way. I for one when I saw TDK didn't see this "GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME" I kept hearing that TDK was (although I think it was a very good movie), and I personally like the Avengers more.
What I meant was that any film critic, director, or anyone who has taken the time to seriously study the artistic merit of film and cinema who would say that The Avengers was a better made movie or that it had more artistic merit than The Dark Knight would be in the minority by a massive margin.
Lol, sources please.
The writing by Joss isn't anything short of a masterpiece considering the number of personas vs TDK. Galadgawyn summed up TDK quite well.
Also, the fact Avengers was shot in 3D makes Avengers a million times better than TDK.
Other people judge a good film off different criteria however. So if you are basing you decision off of the entertainment value or off of the fact that Robert Downey Jr. is in it makes for a different outcome.
Here's my comparison.
Scarlett Johansson > Maggie Gyllenhaal
Unfortunately, I cannot see in one eye
Lol, sources please.
Sources? From Metacritic, a couple publications gave them equal scores, and I count four publications that gave The Avengers a better score, and at least one of them is notoriously predisposed towards lighter, more accessible films. The source is that The Dark Knight has better overall ratings than The Avengers and has better ratings from more respected critics. The vast majority of people who have spent their lives studying this agree that The Dark Knight is the superior film, regardless of actual personal preference. (Note: I use Metacritic over Rotten Tomatoes because it is more selective in what reviews it uses. I also wasn't going to check the scores of 200 different reviews, so I figured roughly 40 would be a large enough sample size, since TDK still came up on top on Rotten Tomatoes with both general critics and the "cream of the crop.")
Yes and no. One of the big things that's praised about The Avengers is how Joss managed to balance six main characters and give each of them a moment. That's definitely one of Joss' strong suits, though I feel like he's never done it better than in Firefly. That said, that balance and the humor are the only things that are even close to masterful in The Avengers. The plot itself is one of the big complaints people have, and while the plot definitely wasn't the focus of the film, you can't call Joss' writing a "masterpiece" with a weak plot. (For the record, I love Whedon, and the fact that he directed was the main reason I went to see it opening weekend.)
Unfortunately, I cannot see in one eye, so I have no idea if The Avengers actually used 3D properly or not, but by this logic, Avatar (Cameron's film, not The Last Airbender) is the best film of all time, since, from everything I've read, no film has topped Avatar's use of 3D.
Unfortunately, I cannot see in one eye
I'm now starting to envision you wearing an eye-patch, a braided beard, and a cutlass, saying, "Arrrggg, I'm makin a rescue attempt wit' me shipmate De Angel Unner De Oak"
But we're not debating scores. Your initial argument was anyone (undefined) seriously studying the artistic merits (also undefined) of films would say TDK is a better movie than Avengers based on those merits. You haven't presented anything at all suggesting TDK is better than Avengers on 'artistic' merit. You simply provided a handful of critic scores, which span many, many, many different reasons and surely not just on 'artistic' merit alone.
How exactly was the plot weak? How was the plot not exactly like every stereotypical plot injected into any superhero movie ever created? Superhero beats bad villians, everyone goes home? The beauty is in how Whedon can move past that and take even the most stereotypical genre and serve us the Creme de la Creme of superhero movies. Personally, I am not a fan of superhero movies or even the genre in general. But I left that IMAX theater last night with a deep respect that could only be obtained through pure talent and an expertly woven tale.
I see alot of 'art' being thrown around but absolutely no one backing up the value that entails.
When I said anyone seriously studying the artistic merits of film, I meant film critics who have spent their lives judging movies, and have the educational background to understand what the art and film community considers good, and give their opinions (and back them up) accordingly. People who legitimately know what they're talking about.
Exactly. The plot was pretty much like every single other superhero movie ever created. Doing a bad thing really well doesn't suddenly make it good. The characterization was good (though Whedon did have the help of multiple prequels, he still kept the standard [which was quite high]), but that's not what I'm talking about when I say the plot, I'm talking about what actually drives the story. Calling The Avengers the "creme de la creme of superhero movies" is just wrong, because that term implies a certain level of sophistication and class, and it had none of that. It was a really, really fun ride, but that's all. If you really thought it was an expertly woven tale, I advise you to read more literature like Faulkner, Whitman, or Hawthorne. If you prefer epic tales, then look at Lord of the Rings or Ringworld. If you're looking for a rip-roaring good time, then look at The Avengers.
LotR is a bore to me. The trilogy is summed up by walking. Walk some more. Drop some jewelry in a volcano. Fin.
LotR is a bore to me. The trilogy is summed up by walking. Walk some more. Drop some jewelry in a volcano. Fin.You do realize you just lost all credibility in this argument, right?
Nick Fury>Pirates. Well, Samuel L. Jackson>Pirates...Unfortunately, I cannot see in one eye
I'm now starting to envision you wearing an eye-patch, a braided beard, and a cutlass, saying, "Arrrggg, I'm makin a rescue attempt wit' me shipmate De Angel Unner De Oak"
Nick Fury>Pirates. Well, Samuel L. Jackson>Pirates...
Wrong eye unfortunately. I'm more Odin.
Nick Fury>Pirates. Well, Samuel L. Jackson>Pirates...
Wrong eye unfortunately. I'm more Odin.
MKC, you fall into a demographic that doesn't appreciate the artistic merit of film, so there's no real debate here. We just have different tastes and appreciate and respect different things.
That's all well and good, but if you genuinely believe The Avengers has as much artistic merit as The Dark Knight, then you simply don't understand the art of film, and there's nothing wrong with that.
That's all well and good, but if you genuinely believe The Avengers has as much artistic merit as The Dark Knight, then you simply don't understand the art of film, and there's nothing wrong with that.
That's all well and good, but if you genuinely believe The Dark Knight has as much artistic merit as The Avengers, then you simply don't understand the art of film, and there's nothing wrong with that.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSElOvbX24T0QPmmdQ90lrCNwdKwT1ZCwgir81pKP2I4eIf6hst0g)
Simply stating it does not make it true.
That's all well and good, but if you genuinely believe The Avengers has as much artistic merit as The Dark Knight, then you simply don't understand the art of film, and there's nothing wrong with that.
That's all well and good, but if you genuinely believe The Dark Knight has as much artistic merit as The Avengers, then you simply don't understand the art of film, and there's nothing wrong with that.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSElOvbX24T0QPmmdQ90lrCNwdKwT1ZCwgir81pKP2I4eIf6hst0g)
Simply stating it does not make it true.
Stop being ridiculous. There's well established analytical tools, methods, and archetypes we can use to examine films/stories/etc.
If we use them to look at the Avengers vs. Batman Begins or TDK...
we can clearly see that as a story, the Avengers is subpar to Nolan Batman.
Sure, the Avengers is funnier, but BB...
...and TDK have significantly more to say about life.
Nolan Batman is more artistic than the Avengers. That's just how it is.
If you want to try to argue otherwise, I'm going to have to ask you what plot or symbolic elements in the Avengers show it has artistic merit at all...
and why those merits outweigh themes such as the power of Fear in BB - I'm thinking of the ending sequences in the Narrows, for example, in which BB seems a little similar to some works of CS Lewis in that hell is what happens when man is abandoned to his fear and worry.
My wife and I had heard all the hype about TDK and watched it one time. Still in shock, we watched it a second time to see if there was something we had missed. After the second time we threw it in the trash. Just speaking an opinion here, but if sadism is "art" now, then I don't want any part of it (like most of what the NEA now calls "art"). I get that the movie explored dark themes, and I think the Joker played his role very well. But we just felt "gloomy" after the movie, and we don't see the point of spending our time to feel that way. I especially don't like how our "hero" encourages the police commisioner to perpetuate a lie, no matter how "heroic" of him it was.
I can back up my opinion that The Dark Knight is a more artful film with multiple examples of how the film executes it's ideas and conveys its messages masterfully. I can also back up my opinion with the fact that the film critics who studied this and do this for a living agree with me in a pretty large majority. "Amateur film critic" is something of a hobby of mine, and I'm able to further back my position by simply having a very large amount of exposure to film and literature over the last four years. I can laugh at the notion that The Avengers is "a masterfully woven tale" because I cannot count the number of plots that I've been exposed to that were far superior to The Avengers using all my digits. If "amateur film critic" isn't good enough, then I simply point to the people who have hundreds of times more exposure than I do.Yes, but those same types of critics say that a cross soaking in urine is "artistic" too, don't they? What is "artful" or "artistic" is already subjective, depending on who you ask. If we can agree on this, then we can certainly agree that what is MORE artistic than something else is also "in the eyes of the beholder".
Yes, but those same types of critics say that a cross soaking in urine is "artistic" too, don't they? What is "artful" or "artistic" is already subjective, depending on who you ask. If we can agree on this, then we can certainly agree that what is MORE artistic than something else is also "in the eyes of the beholder".
Why not just say "I liked this movie better than this movie" and leave it at that? I don't know why we have to argue over which is more "artistic".
This thread is silly. Objective definitions of artistic value are useless. Someone could try to explain for hours why a Picasso painting is artistically better than my 8 year-old niece's drawing, but I still have a perfectly legitimate and arguable position that the drawing is artistically better. Why? Because all art is purely subjective. One can present arguments why TDK is a better movie, but stating as an objective fact that it is more artistic is silly. And that is a fact.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_RjVscSWW_oY%2FS9i5tKiaiuI%2FAAAAAAAAAJk%2FEsv1LgrBDW4%2Fs1600%2Fhigh_horse.jpg&hash=924ed76b0d7ad5c407573fb2900c8e172dbcf96b)
Found your horse man.
This thread is silly. Objective definitions of artistic value are useless. Someone could try to explain for hours why a Picasso painting is artistically better than my 8 year-old niece's drawing, but I still have a perfectly legitimate and arguable position that the drawing is artistically better. Why? Because all art is purely subjective. One can present arguments why TDK is a better movie, but stating as an objective fact that it is more artistic is silly. And that is a fact.
I give this post 5 stars out of 5. And I'm a very experienced and objective post reader and critic.
;)
In my opinion, what makes a film more artistic than another is the types of ideas it presents and how it presents them. It's a little more straightforward than "traditional" art, and it's much, much easier to convey those ideas and the emotion behind them in a film.
"Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong."In my opinion, what makes a film more artistic than another is the types of ideas it presents and how it presents them. It's a little more straightforward than "traditional" art, and it's much, much easier to convey those ideas and the emotion behind them in a film.
Thus my point. Earlier in the thread, there was a lot of "inarguable" and "no legitimate argument"-type language being thrown around. My point was that everything that can be defined as artistic is arguable, and there can be legitimate arguments for the artistic value of anything based on someone's opinion.
"Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong."In my opinion, what makes a film more artistic than another is the types of ideas it presents and how it presents them. It's a little more straightforward than "traditional" art, and it's much, much easier to convey those ideas and the emotion behind them in a film.
Thus my point. Earlier in the thread, there was a lot of "inarguable" and "no legitimate argument"-type language being thrown around. My point was that everything that can be defined as artistic is arguable, and there can be legitimate arguments for the artistic value of anything based on someone's opinion.
Like did any of you see the Infinity Gauntlet in Thor?
I personally don't watch movies to be entertained, (I play flash games for that :P) I watch them to be intellectually stimulated, to engross myself in the film, and to contemplate what ideas the film is trying to convey. I would consider that a far more 'artistic' goal than just being entertained. If you don't think that my goal is artistic then well, to each his own, but if you do think that movies should be watched for more than just entertainment, I think that my argument of TDK > Avengers makes more sense.