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

The Watchmen: I don’t know anything about Sin City, But I am familiar with the Watchmen, so I am going to hope the one you actually ment to suggest was everything I said made the Avengers a landmark film and better was the Watchmen. The Watchmen did not achieve what I said the avengers did. First off, while there was a team of heros in it, Rorshack was clearly the main hero of the film. He begins the investigations into the murder mystery that starts the plot and gets the last laugh even after he died. And even if I were to concede Watchmen succeeded in having multiple Lead Heros, following along the plots of several characters equally….you still cant call it even remotely the same as the Avengers. In Avengers nearly every one of them is worthy as a title character of there own movie, in the case of three of them is a title character of there own movie, and thus holds the stage like a films main star. Downey, Hemsworth, Evens, there all tried and tested Big stars. I could not tell you a single one of the actors from Watchman from memory because that’s all they ever did that I paid much attention to. In the Watchmen multiple character stories are set up because of a lack of lead heroes rather than all of them being leads, its really more like all of them are supporting characters. In Avengers they are all leads, they all have there epic heroic moment to shine…and Watchmen is a movie and a comic made to show heroes as anything but ‘shining’. So that refutes your rebuttal to my claim Avengers is a Landmark film in movie history. Avengers are ‘basic’? The Avengers cannot fairly be called basic at all, maybe you are confusing ‘basic’ with ‘established’ in that Tony Starks character was established 2 films ago and thus did not need ‘re-set up’. And to head off the obvious rebuttal to that, the film could have shown character growth if they wanted to, but the point of the team up film is to show his established character in interaction with other established characters. If the characters were not complex, then you could not get such interesting interaction with two polar opposites like Stark and Rogers, a eccentric maverick futurist genius and a simple disciplined soldier from the past. If anything I should attack Bruce’s character as ‘basic’ compared to the avengers, It took 5 movies to set up all the characters for this film, where as Bruce’s was basic enough to be set up in only 2 pervious films. Hawkeye was wasted This is and incredibly wrong use of the word ‘waist’. To be wasted means his role had no use to the plot. His character had a lot of use, as shields best agent he showed what the best agent could do to there best base (the helicarrier) and he showed how powerful Loki was with the tesseract. He gave some personal emotional motive for the Widow. Next, he’s not one of Marvels Big 3 or 4, not a returning title star from a previous film, so its better if for most of the film he stays out way from them. The Hero’s fought too much This is the most ridiculous charge I think you’ve made against the avengers. Remember when I said Rodenberry’s rule for story is its got to be about something, and the plot has to help show what its about? This team’s inter conflict is what the movie is goes deep into being about, not Loki. The villain is a tool for showing that story but he is not more important than that story. When a movie is all about the villain and not about the story you get abominations like ‘Batman & Robin’ with George Clooney. The Hero’s fights with each other is part of the films best highlights, you get to see how they all might match against each other at some point in the film, at least the match ups you want to see. And then of course there’s the reason’s behind all there fights, there clashing egos. This movie brilliantly showed them growing to work together in spite of all these strong personalities in conflict with each other. Hulk beat Loki too easy Again you foolishly make the mistake by judging the film by how well it makes everything about the villain. It is because Loki is inconsequential enough to be ‘hulk smashed’ in such a way that this film rises above the flaws of ‘Batman and Robin’. The film is about building up the team, not the villain, and the team is built up perfectly in that smack down. Loki As I argued before, the movie is about the team of heros, not the villain, so its perfect the number of times he gets owned, but this is not to say he doesn’t get enough to fairly ‘build him up’ as you demand he be. You did leave out his capture by and large was his own design, he brought an invading alien army into the city of New York. The Fact that it took Hulk and not Thor or Iron Man is actually saying a lot in favor of Loki. Supporting cast Who cares if they weren’t developed more? In fact that’s what makes them so great. Because the purpose of supporting characters is to support the main characters. Stealing silver screen away to show how ‘complicated’ there side character role is does not do that. Maria is just a shield agent ment to support and show us who Fury is and she does that fine. Erik is supposed to put more at stake in this for Thor than just bringing his baby half-brother back to asgard and he does that fine. Commisioner Gordon fails in all respects if you think about toward the purpose of a supporting cast member. What did he personally bring out of Bruce? He basically steals the silver screen away to show you what the police are doing. And that’s not totally bad, it just mean he’s not a fantastic supporting cast member, he’s kind of a weak, but acceptable one that fulfills a weak purpose in terms of plot. Plot Quality Most of your criticism is of the form I have already dealt with, putting too much emphasis on the villain and of course why the hero fights are central to the deeper plot. So I will just address the newer points. Captain America the First Avenger did not explore the consequences of thousands of people dyeing in WW2, was that poor plot for that movies part? In fact I didn’t see one Holocaust reference in it. That’s not poor plot though, its plot strength. Movies and TV shows are harmed by spreading everything so thin over irrelevant stuff to the plot. What matters was they had to save the city, its not a movie about war affecting a city. Its about a team of heroes. You could explore every little detail there is under the sun to ask, but it spreads the film thin and away from what its all about. I argue restraint from needless exploration of the irrelevant is plot strength.