The Dark Knight Rises Was A Superior Movie To The Avengers (Assemble)

For this round, I will argue against the Avengers, and where I have space I will also rebut my opponent's criticisms of TDKR. Lead Character/Hero in costume My opponent chooses all of the Avengers and argues that the fact there was multiple lead heroes makes it a landmark movie (a claim I will not argue against) and that it had never been done before with so much success. If he means about the box office numbers, he's absolutely right, but the intro to this debate specifically acknowledges the box office success of the Avengers, and it also mentions that this debate is based on pure subjective quality, not quantity (the money made). In terms of quality, I can counter my opponent's claim by pointing to, among other things, the movie adaptations of Sin City (http://en.wikipedia.org...(film)#Reception) and Watchmen (http://en.wikipedia.org...(film)#Reception), both of which were fairly received critically and I'd say at least one of which was a better movie than AA, especially in terms of character depth, where while Wayne actually shows some complexity to the way he acts, the heroes in Avengers are largely pretty basic. It's also worth noting that it's highly noticeable throughout AA just how few the number of heroes are. Yes, FEW. The fact that Spiderman, or even the Fantastic Four, are not around while their city is getting essentially burnt to the ground is inexplicable. There's also the complete wasting of Hawkeye, who spends more than half of the movie amounting to nothing more than a zombie and only gets anything remotely good at the climax of the movie. I will also point out that far too much of this movie involves the heroes fighting with each other with hostile arguments and physical violence, which ends up detracting from the actual very real threat they have from Loki. Plus, they take him into custody when he appears all too willing to do so, and this was highly predictable and stupid considering what The Dark Knight had already shown us would happen in such a situation. With the fight scenes in costume, again I refer to the fact that too many times they spend throughout the movie fighting each other, and also the fact that while I am not entirely against the use of CGI in movies for fight scenes, I believe a fight scene can generally deliver more when you ground it in reality, hence why Batman's physicality is considerably more impressive than all of the Avengers cast. Speaking of which, having Hulk pummel Loki in seconds has exactly the same problem behind it as the ending to Kill Bill vol 2. If you're going to build up a villain, have him put up an actual physical fight. Villain Loki is impressive, sure, but weak. Loki has an awful habit of getting owned in this movie far too much, even despite being a God. Whether it be his capture by Iron Man and Captain America, his getting outwitted by Black Widow, his getting shot by Coulson, or of course the ridiculously short fight scene with Hulk, Loki shows none of the actual skillsets in the major battles that you'd expect someone of his powers to be able to do. His best achievement ultimately amounts to storming a SHIELD base at the beginning of the movie, something which quite clearly pales to what Bane was able to do. Loki had control of the city he invaded for mere hours and never had his opponents truly defeated. Bane DID. Supporting characters I will sympathise with my opponent and agree that Coulson was a pretty great part of the Avengers. However, I can counter this by pointing out that Maria Hill really added nothing to the movie, and that the generic alien "bad guys" supporting Loki could have done with considerably better character development, and likewise for the character of Erik Selveg who just felt extremely forgettable. Not to mention of course that as someone who does not actually read comic books that often, I felt kind of alienated by the big reveal in the credits, and I needed a Wikipedia search to know just who the hell "Thanos" was and why I should care about any future role he has in an Avengers sequel. Personally, I'm still very much of the belief they could do with a considerably bigger name for the sequel (eg: Doom, Apocalypse, Galactus). Plot Quality There is a severe lack of a plot in the Avengers movie, or at the very least only an exceedingly thin one. It's basically just Loki wanting to use a powerful artifact in order to decimate Earth, something he could have done at pretty much any point in the movie. But the movie is stretched out to two and a half hours due to commitments to making the heroes fight each other and having other distractions like Loki pointlessly going over to Germany and a subplot about SHIELD wanting to build weapons with the Tessarect that never goes anywhere. Also, the ending is very abrupt. The consequences of thousands of people dying in New York are never explored. There's nothing remotely hinting about the preparations for what happens the next time a big alien portal. Thor and Loki just go away from Earth. Captain America heads off, with no further word on how the hell he as a guy from World War 2 is going to cope in a modern day society. And of course, the release of Iron Man 3 only amplified the question of where on earth Rhodes was. Comic Justice As someone who's not particularly well-versed on comics, I will take my opponent's word on how faithful the Avengers is to the comics. Rebuttals 1) While it's entirely possible and probable that DKR is not as good as Dark Knight, that is neither here or there. The issue is solely whether DKR is superior to Avengers. I will point out to my opponent that a big part of caring about the guy in the costume is knowing what makes the guy himself tick. Consequentially, this means that such a guy needs to have character depth. As for Bale, one known outburst in a quarter century of acting does not a jerk make, and it's more likely the case that as a very talented method actor Bale is very passionate about his craft, and there's a moving account about what he's like here: http://open.salon.com... 2) Wayne becomes the way he was because he was never able to truly let go of Batman, a common theme about Wayne's identity that was passed on from the previous two movies. When he gets the chance to be Batman again, he blindly charges into it while massively underestimating the substantial threats he faces. When he is in the prison, he is deprived of his Bat-suit, but still initially operates under the philosophy of trying to suppress his fear, a trait that had been common in his role as Batman, and it's by admitting his fear, something that is much more of a Wayne trait, that he escapes the prison. As for his character, it is stated nowhere that he became a cripple because of Two Face, but simply because he let himself go and became a recluse as he gave up the life of Batman and grieved over Rachel Dawes for years and years. That last is important. It's all very well stating what he logically wouldn't allow to happen to himself physically, but this is a man torn apart by a loss that has really hit him hard, and who do we not know who hasn't been affected similarly? 3) I strongly disagree with the notion having fewer Batman scenes was "boring". Like I say, having character development and the "build" to his becoming Batman again actually made you anticipate the action scenes more, as I said you can't get behind the costume unless you really get why the man behind it acts the way he does. An excellent comparison movie would be Kickass, which operates very similarly. As for the fist fight with Bane, it felt more real (less CGI and more realistic) and passionate than the climax to the Avengers, as it felt considerably more personal and more like they actually wanted to hurt each other than the Avengers and their generic aliens in the climax. There's nothing wrong with a day fight since Bats has no advantage either way.