Do you think this movie is better than The Dark Knight? - Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) Discussion

[–] Marx_Bros_Fan86 10 years ago

No. TDK is a legit crime drama that transcends the superhero genre. It has one of the best hero/villain rivalries in recent years. Joker's performance is better than anything in Winter Soldier. While the Winter Soldier was a cool character, he was underutilized. TWS, like most Marvel movies, lacks a great bad guy. Most importantly, it feels like there are real stakes in The Dark Knight. In Winter Soldier, people who should be dead come back to life, and the plot is kind of outrageous. Granted, there are improbabilities in the Dark Knight too, but you have to turn your mind off to accept Hydra infiltrating every level of the US government.

The Indians are coming! Quick, put your scalp in your pocket! -Groucho Marx

reply

[–] justanicknamed 10 years ago

the plot is kind of outrageous. Granted, there are improbabilities in the Dark Knight too, but you have to turn your mind off to accept Hydra infiltrating every level of the US government.

The joker hires all of the bank robbers anonymously and get them to kill each other, including one of them who gets killed when the bus runs him over. And, he has to not get killed himself by the bank manager with a shot-gun.

He infiltrates the mob, is able to do incredible things such as killing the guy with a pencil, kill the police commissioner so there is a public funeral along the street where one of his henchmen "just happens" to live so he can use that window as a distraction - after subduing several policemen. He is able to set fire to a fire-truck on a public road to create a distraction to move a police caravan to where he wants, overtake it with his vehicles, then when he gets arrested it is because he wants to be arrested and one of his henchmen "just happens" to get arrested as well - which is good because he's got the bomb sewn in to his belly. Then he sabotages not one, but two ferrys to get them to blow each other up. Yadda, yadda, yadda - no, there is no "mind turning off" at all with regards to the plot of TDK.

Hey, how about in TDKR when Bane first attacks Bruce orders the nuclear device to be flooded? Or, how about when they bankrupt Bruce, the stock exchange just says, "Let's just reset the clock so that we don't count any transactions that took place that morning since we don't know exactly what they were after?" Of course, that would mean they'd have to reset the actual clock of the attack on the stock exchange taking place in the morning, and then just a few minutes later when they are chasing Bane and his thugs it is night time.

It is much more believable that Hydra, working behind the scenes for 70 years, has infiltrated every level of the government than what TDK wanted us to believe. And I didn't even mention BB when Raz has to put a gas-mask on even though he was breathing the gas during the attack. I mean, he's either been inoculated against it like Bruce was or he's susceptible to it. And what about the microwave emitter somehow drying up all of the water in the sewers as if that would make the poison air-born? What about all of the water surrounding the city? Shouldn't that have gotten dried up as well?

Sorry, but your comparison doesn't work. Like all comic book movies, there are lots of things which you have to accept in order to enjoy the movies.

And, while I didn't hate the Nolan trilogy (I thought BB was a good start) I don't think they are anywhere near the masterpieces that DC fans make them out to be.

reply

[–] Marx_Bros_Fan86 10 years ago

We're going to have to agree to disagree. It's a question of scale. What the Joker did, while it was improbable, was a much smaller operation than what Hydra pulled off, which makes it easier for me to ignore the impossibility of it all. I'm not even going to address BB or TDKR since that wasn't the topic of discussion.

reply

[–] justanicknamed 10 years ago

The problem with your view of it is your disregard for the old saying, "It is easier to steal $1 from a million people than a million $ from one."

Hydra had 70 years to move pieces in to place. Seventy years to do small maneuvers behind people's backs. Seventy years to move their plan forward under the guises of "freedom."

There was what...a year between BB and TDK? Two? So, at most Joker has that amount of time to get his plan in to action. And, to be realistic, it would have only a few months to maybe several months to get all of his sh!t together - getting enough money to hire a crew, finding a crew, getting the equipment, etc.

Your acceptance of the impossibilities of TDK are due solely to your preference to DC comics.

reply

[–] bethnor1 10 years ago

that's the problem. it's a good crime drama. it's a terrible superhero movie.

on top of that, like many of nolan's work, TDK is way overrated. the overpraise for this movie has generated enormous problems for his films. one bad habit he has is reusing the same actors in the same roles. lemme guess, michael caine played a cynical mentor type in interstellar. that's the FIFTH time nolan employed him for that exact role.

reply

[–] fiero-49251 10 years ago

I'm more a "Batman" fan, but "WS" was well done and was more memorable sticking close to the comic and animated series! "BR" was terrily over-rated and I still haven't watched it from beginning to end; usually just tuning in for some of the more memorable scenes!

- - http://scifiblogs3.blogspot.com/2012/12/batman-forever.html - -

- http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/batman-forever.html - Batman Homage

reply

[–] Phantom_Panther 9 years ago

that's the problem. it's a good crime drama. it's a terrible superhero movie.

I've never understood this criticism. Superheroes borrow elements from other genres (sci fi, fantasy, noir).

reply

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

Well, when the superhero presented on film sucks.....

reply

[–] tectash 9 years ago

You're missing the point. He watched TDK & TDKR when he was 13. He's a voracious reader. He's been reading stuff above his level for years, including Tom Clancy stuff which can be tedious. He's read lots of Batman comics as well. \

So we are suppose to take your kid's word for it as if it is infallible truth? You yourself have shown a biased against the dark knight so how do we know you did not coerce him into disliking it? I am not saying you are lying it just is rather stupid that you think his word is the end all be all of the dark knight's quality. I do not trust a 13 year old's taste I do not care how smart he is.

Not to mention Nolan's Batman had way more in common with the comics than Tim Burton's. If you would like to debate me on comic book accuracy be my guest. Am I saying Nolan's is 100% dead on no but it is more in line with the comics than Burton's that I can guarantee you. The thing you do not get is when critics watch a movie they are measuring it as a film not a comic book.

In all honesty if Burton's were measured by critics by taking the comics into account his films would fail miserably. Try judging the movie for what it is rather than what you want it to be. I hate how people like you fault the movie for not being exactly the way you want. I can not stand that because it is a very spoiled entitled attitude. As if the movie is specifically made for you get over yourself.

reply

[–] Phantom_Panther 9 years ago

According to whose standards?

reply

[–] lordDEMAXUS 8 years ago

his films. one bad habit he has is reusing the same actors in the same roles. lemme guess, michael caine played a cynical mentor type in interstella

This is a retarded criticism. Jean Luc Goddard and and Ingmar Bergmann, two of the best filmmakers of all time reuse their actors so much. and people like Scorcese do that too. I mean they even reuse the same actor for main characters. The only main actor Nolan has re used was Christian Bale and it was in 4 movies and 3 of them were part of a trilogy.

reply

[–] janis_bananis 10 years ago

Depends on what you mean with "better". TDK has many strong points, Heath Ledger's Joker being at the forefront of those, but TWS is much more entertaining.

And so it is with many of my favourite films. TDK may on most points be very superior to Big Trouble in Little China, for instance, but it's not nearly as entertaining.

The realism aspect is often seen as one of TDK's most valued, but when it comes to superhero movies i'm much more into escapism. That's why Baman Begins is my favourite of the Dark Knight Trilogy.

reply

[–] yvonneshusband 10 years ago

The only reason I would have for not rating this higher than TDK is, funnily enough, because it's working so well as an espionage thriller that just happens to have a superhero in it right up to the moment it becomes a CBM again. I find the shift between the two genres very jarring. TDK's only real weakness for me is that damned 'one true love' plot thread; that reminded me that I wasn't watching a perfect Batman movie, after all. So, overall, I rate them both at 9 stars each.

Always remember what Dirty Harry said about opinions before you express your own!

reply

[–] irc_addicts 10 years ago

Of course it is. Watching a 2 hour movie of paint drying would be better than tdk.

Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it

reply

[–] zxc100 10 years ago

They are both my 2 favorite CB movies of all time ... with Avengers in #3 spot.
I probably seen them 10-15 times each ..

With that in mind , I think that TWS has a better rewatch value because TDK is very very exhausting ..

But overall , I think TDK is the better movie because it's so intense - the all thing is like a rollercoaster ride.
And it feels overall more solid .. not by much but is noticeable - like it has a additional layer to it.

Now... TWS is very very good and beats the Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises or Begins in almost every aspect but... it's not quite at TDK level.

reply

[–] varunmshr1 10 years ago

No.
Now this is coming from a guy who has no alliances (I do not enjoy reading comic books and I think superhero movies have done more damage to Hollywood's creativity than Censor Boards have done to the freedom of expression).
Still, because of some strange series of events, I ended up watching both these movies in cinema halls and paid a lot of money for them. Money, which I could have used elsewhere.
Still The Dark Knight, in my opinion a far better movie than Winter Soldier.
The basic problems I had with Winter Soldier are first of all plot related, people constantly tell me that it has one of the best stories ever written for a comic book movie ever. But I was very very irritated while watching the movie. Reasons: I knew Captain America is immortal. I knew he could jump off a plane to a motorcycle back to a chopper and then to a submarine and then swim 50000 miles and come up right in front of a rocket launcher and all he would have to do is throw his shield and maybe jump and it would all be okay. So, as much as the story wanted me to care, I did not, I could not. Because I know for a fact that he is immortal, this movie will never ever kill captain america. That's one problem with announcing 17 movies in a row, you kill my suspension of disbelief. Plus, everyone who dies in marvel movies, has more than 70% chance of getting revived, or coming back or anything. Second problem I had was with the guns. This movie assaulted my eardrums with shooting and guns and whatnot. Which once again I found pointless because no one dies. I say, No one. Not even Fury. Also, I found it to be a very shallow movie, I didn't know what Black Widow's or that Falcon guy's motivations are.

The Dark Knight has an absurd, convoluted plot. Which might (might) make sense to The Joker, a character that I found much much more interesting than anything I have ever seen in any comic book movie ever. I actually went ahead and researched Joker after the movie, I found out a lot of Batman comics and references to Joker et al. But I mean as a neutral movie goer, who is not a comic book expert, The Joker was worth the price of admission for me. That is one character I will never forget. Sadly in Winter Soldier, I don't think I even remember what that other bucky guy was and what's his story and what was that one villain who shot his maid because she overheard their conversation. I have seen a lot of Marvel movies, I can say nearly all of them, but I don't think any charcter for me would ever carry the depth of Batman and Joker.

Second problem is the ideological standpoint. WS was about privacy and intent of crime v/s perpetrating the action. Which is a very nice premise but ideologically, it is not built into an argument. They state this debate in the first half, which I liked. And then how do they resolve it, they decide to have a fist fight over it. So, just because Captain was able to bring down the ships, his philosophical standpoint is superior. Or is this a movie just for the people who believed in Cap's ideas and not for the people who might hold a contrary opinion. Or is that the movie's way of throwing a shield at their face and reminding them that they are equivalent to Nazi villains.

Dark Knight has a lot of debates. One, the most prominent is about Anarchy vs Imposition of Order by compromising on Individual Freedom. I loved, once again, loved how this debate was built cinematic-ally. Shot after shot and scene after scene, I saw characters reaffirming their standpoint on an issue. And even though they fought and beat each other bloody. Can we say Batman won? No. He lost. Can we say Joker won? No.
That's what I liked, the movie described to me an intellectual battle, I could have tuned out the Truck flipping over or the Joker slicing people's mouths open or his 'Tryouts' or the Kitchen Scene or the Bank Robbery but can I ever forget the speech about Chaos, No. I can't. I tried to not waste my money on the Blu-Ray but I couldn't stop myself because of all these themes and the way they were embedded and debated.

WS soldier gave me a huge *beep* you'. And showed me a fist fight between Cap and WS in the end. Dark Knight gave me a 20 second monologue by Gordon that I can still recite verbatim. I never watched Batman Begins or the sequel. I never cared. But as a stand alone movie, I would say Dark Knight is much much better than WS.

Maybe I am not the target audience of these movies. As I get from reading the comments, people want action scenes and menacing villains in these movies, which I am okay with. But if the final verdict on this motion is inclusive of the intellectual depth of the movie, I would give WS a 3/10 and Dark Knight a 7/10.

reply

[–] fiero-49251 10 years ago

Even though I'm from the DC universe of fans, "WS" was done well and I watch bits and pieces every time it comes on cable! Never was a fan of "TDK;" or "TDKR" for that matter! Convoluted is the watchword of the day with these movies and they're hard to watch and listen to! "Begins" is and will always be the best of this genre IMO; so classic, reminding me of a gladiator movie I watched as a kid with the drama and music! Loved it! ;-)

- - http://scifiblogs3.blogspot.com/ - - Sci-fi, Batman, and E:FC

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/ - - Homage to DW & B7

reply

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

I knew Captain America is immortal. I knew he could jump off a plane to a motorcycle back to a chopper and then to a submarine and then swim 50000 miles and come up right in front of a rocket launcher and all he would have to do is throw his shield and maybe jump and it would all be okay. So, as much as the story wanted me to care, I did not, I could not. Because I know for a fact that he is immortal, this movie will never ever kill captain america.

Captain America has a Super Soldier Serum coursing through his veins which allows him to do some of the stuff that you talk about. Batman, however, is 100% naturally a human, but can jump down several stories on to a van and not be hurt. Or fall out of a tall building, hold a 120# woman on his chest, land on his back on top of a car, and not be hurt. He can bend a rifle barrel with one hand (not to mention the fact that the person holding the rifle would have to exert an equal amount of force in the opposite direction for Batman to be able to bend the barrel.) Batman can also have his back injured to the point where a vertebra is out of place, have it whacked back in to place, hang there for a day or two, start working out again, climb up a wall, jump, fall, and not have the rope attached to him snap his spine.

But, got to say it was quite sad when Batman died...oh wait a minute.

everyone who dies in marvel movies, has more than 70% chance of getting revived, or coming back or anything

Joker died in 1989 but came back to life 19 years later. Same thing with Two-face, although that only took him 13 years.

And how about Batman himself? He died in the nuclear blast - but then appears in Florence a short while later.

Second problem I had was with the guns. This movie assaulted my eardrums with shooting and guns and whatnot. Which once again I found pointless because no one dies. I say, No one. Not even Fury

True. The pirates on the ship that got shot didn't die. None of the guys Cap fought died. Sitwell didn't die when TWS tossed him out of the car. The battle at SHIELD headquarters didn't claim any lives - not even when TWS destroyed all of their planes.

Hmmm, I think we might have watched different movies.

I didn't know what Black Widow's or that Falcon guy's motivations are.

Yeah, that was a tough one. If only they would have shown Widow having been wounded by TWS, or how she was so attached to Fury. Or how SHIELD had been taken over by Hydra. And with regards to "that Falcon guy's motivation", I wish he would have talked about how he had mostly lost hope after losing his friend in the war. Or how he's a soldier who is no able to fight alongside the greatest soldier ever against a truly evil entity.

The Dark Knight has an absurd, convoluted plot.

This one you actually got right.

They state this debate in the first half, which I liked. And then how do they resolve it, they decide to have a fist fight over it.

Yeah, this was p!ss poor as well. I mean, Hydra has always seemed SOOOO reasonable. They should have been able to put it to a vote as to who gets to do what. I can totally see Hydra not eliminating millions of people so they can rule the world if the vote doesn't go their way.

menacing villains in these movies,

The problem with Joker in TDK is that he wasn't menacing. He was annoying. I seriously can't believe someone didn't kill him years prior. At least with Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Joker in Batman (1989) you could understand how he made it so long. He was brilliant, and a thug. He was able to work his way up the ranks of the mob until he became the #2 guy.

In this one, Joker is some guy who no one knows who he is, where he came from, how he could afford to finance the bank robberies, etc. Yet, he can do "magical" stuff, no matter how convoluted it is or how many different things have to go 100% right for his plan to work. Not get killed during the bank robbery. Not get killed while dealing with the mob. Not get caught in Bruce's penthouse. Having his henchman with the phone implanted in him be caught and imprisoned with him. Harvey's coin landing on the "good" side.

And, as far as the Cap vs. Batman goes. Cap is a beacon of hope. He's there for freedom. Batman is the noise you fear in the dark if you are a badguy.

Yet, one of them has a p@ssy rule about no killing, and the other knows that during battle, deaths occur.

I liked Batman Begins, but the other two movies left me feeling, "meh" at best.

reply

[–] highway_demon_77 9 years ago

The problem with Joker in TDK is that he wasn't menacing. He was annoying. I seriously can't believe someone didn't kill him years prior. At least with Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Joker in Batman (1989) you could understand how he made it so long. He was brilliant, and a thug. He was able to work his way up the ranks of the mob until he became the #2 guy.

True. Besides that Ledger's performance with them flapping sounds he makes when he speaks annoyed me as well, the lack of any insight into the Joker's criminal doings contradicts with everything else Nolan's trilogy stands for - realism. Nolan's Joker is just a reeeally lucky punk.

Batman Begins is great tough.

The box... you opened it, we came.

reply

[–] dagenspear 9 years ago

Joker died in 1989 but came back to life 19 years later. Same thing with Two-face, although that only took him 13 years.

And how about Batman himself? He died in the nuclear blast - but then appears in Florence a short while later.

None of that happened. The B89 character isn't the same Joker from TDK, same with Two-Face. They didn't come back to life. It's 2 different stories, fully separated. Bruce didn't die in TDKR. He escaped and let it fly on auto pilot.

The problem with Joker in TDK is that he wasn't menacing. He was annoying. I seriously can't believe someone didn't kill him years prior. At least with Jack Nicholson's portrayal of Joker in Batman (1989) you could understand how he made it so long. He was brilliant, and a thug. He was able to work his way up the ranks of the mob until he became the #2 guy.

Why would he be killed years before? He'd only been active like that for a year or 2. Who cares about working your way up? Ledger's doesn't care about that. Both were no more menacing than the other. Though the Joker would be annoying to other people. Not that that means someone would automatically kill him for that.

In this one, Joker is some guy who no one knows who he is, where he came from, how he could afford to finance the bank robberies, etc. Yet, he can do "magical" stuff, no matter how convoluted it is or how many different things have to go 100% right for his plan to work. Not get killed during the bank robbery. Not get killed while dealing with the mob. Not get caught in Bruce's penthouse. Having his henchman with the phone implanted in him be caught and imprisoned with him. Harvey's coin landing on the "good" side.

He funded them by starting off with armed robbery. They say this BB. Him robbing banks is an escalation of that. There's nothing magical there. He had precautions for many of the things you say. Him having his henchman imprisoned with him isn't important, but the movie states the dirty cops were doing what Joker told them to. Harvey's coin landing on one side is one of a 50/50 chance.

And, as far as the Cap vs. Batman goes. Cap is a beacon of hope. He's there for freedom. Batman is the noise you fear in the dark if you are a badguy.

Yet, one of them has a p@ssy rule about no killing, and the other knows that during battle, deaths occur.

I liked Batman Begins, but the other two movies left me feeling, "meh" at best.

The fact that you think having a no kill rule is that term that you use as an insult proves that you seem to not want the character of Batman at all. Batman is a man, a vigilante who is psychologically traumatized. Steve is a soldier, who is well adjusted. Batman chooses not to kill, because his battles are about keeping himself from becoming like the villains he faces, which isn't usually direct evil take over the world people, but mentally ill people trying to get revenge, prove a point or even in some cases save someone they care about. Batman says as much in the animated movie Batman: Under The Red Hood, that he could become like them if he did what they do and he won't take that chance. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

reply

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

None of that happened. The B89 character isn't the same Joker from TDK, same with Two-Face. They didn't come back to life. It's 2 different stories, fully separated. Bruce didn't die in TDKR. He escaped and let it fly on auto pilot.

OMG are you really this stupid?

Why would he be killed years before?

Because he was as annoying as f(ck. No way he just happened to be like that once he got to be "Joker." That's what I meant about working his way up - he couldn't just one day decide to be "Joker."

He funded them by starting off with armed robbery. They say this BB.

It takes a sh!t load of money to finance bank robberies like he does. He'd have to have hit bunches of places - and not get caught.

Him having his henchman imprisoned with him isn't important

Other than the one who had the exploding phone in him, right?

The fact that you think having a no kill rule is that term that you use as an insult proves that you seem to not want the character of Batman at all.

No, it proves that you don't know the difference between killing and murdering. You also don't realize how stupid it is for him to not kill since it can not only jeopardize the mission, but put innocents in harm's way.

I don't want him to set out to cause a person's death, but if to keep the bomb from blowing up he needs to break a thug's neck, crack away.

reply

[–] dagenspear 8 years ago

You said that they came back from the dead. They didn't.

Yes, he could and did. He worked his way up by armed robbery.

He did both of those things.

In the grand scheme of the movie, it not really relevant at all.

We all die. Saving innocents by killing others isn't going to change that. There was never a situation in this movie where he had to break a thug's neck to stop a bomb. But he has contingencies to stop a situation like that in the comics. In the TDKT though, Batman doesn't state a no-kill rule. He states a no-execution rule. Of course, if you watched the movie, you'd know that he does kill Harvey Dent at the end to save Commissioner Gordon's son. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

You said that they came back from the dead. They didn't.

Yes, you really ARE this stupid.

Here's the conversation that you are trying to reference.

everyone who dies in marvel movies, has more than 70% chance of getting revived, or coming back or anything

Joker died in 1989 but came back to life 19 years later. Same thing with Two-face, although that only took him 13 years.

And how about Batman himself? He died in the nuclear blast - but then appears in Florence a short while later.

The other guy was whining about people being revived in Marvel movies but was skipping how it is done in DC as well.

Yes, he could and did. He worked his way up by armed robbery.

I said a sh!t load of money. Not a couple thousand. More like tens of thousands. And he would have had to have not gotten caught at all since no one knew who he was.

He did both of those things.

In the grand scheme of the movie, it not really relevant at all.

Too difficult to actually quote what you are referencing? It's not like you make a whole lot of sense so it is easy to know.

Saving innocents by killing others isn't going to change that

Then feel free to kill yourself.

In the TDKT though, Batman doesn't state a no-kill rule. He states a no-execution rule. Of course, if you watched the movie, you'd know that he does kill Harvey Dent at the end to save Commissioner Gordon's son.

If YOU actually watched the movie you'd know that not once does he say "No executing" people.

reply

[–] dagenspear 8 years ago

It isn't done in those movies though. Joker in B89 never came back. Same with Two Face from BF. So there's no connection, because those films aren't in the same universe. Unlike the MCU.

I'm sorry, but multiple robberies can gain more money than a couple thousand. Of course, everything he needed could be stolen. And the men were all counting on getting a cut of the money, showing that they were waiting on getting paid with the fruits of the robbery.

Why? But I was talking about him hitting a lot of places and not getting caught for the 1st and about how the guy who blew up in't hugely important in the grand scheme of the plot.

That would be murder. That's a sin. But I wasn't advocating for not saving innocents if it means killing a murderer in the first place.

He states verbatim that he's not an executioner in BB. He never says that he won't kill if it means saving an innocent life, but it's made clear that he doesn't want to. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Too difficult to actually quote what you are referencing? It's not like you make a whole lot of sense so it is easy to know.

reply

[–] lordDEMAXUS 8 years ago

Joker died in 1989 but came back to life 19 years later. Same thing with Two-face, although that only took him 13 years.

What? Jack Nicholson's joker was a different joker and so was the old two face. this comparison is nonsense. The only real good guy death in a MCU film was in Dr Strange. That is like 15 movies in. Rachel died in TDK and Harvey Dent had an extremely tragic death.

The problem with Joker in TDK is that he wasn't menacing. He was annoying.

Maybe you found him annoying, I don't care but he is one of the best villains ever in terms of writing and acting. For writing i present to you this video:

*beep*

and for acting, there are so many mannerisms and nuances that make elevates him. Why do you think the people the Joker in SS? That is because he just acted crazy. There is no mannerism in Leto's acting to make him believable. In turn it makes him a cringe fest.

Not get killed during the bank robbery. Not get killed while dealing with the mob. Not get caught in Bruce's penthouse. Having his henchman with the phone implanted in him be caught and imprisoned with him. Harvey's coin landing on the "good" side.

He did not get killed during the bank robbery because no one could kill him. He did not get killed when dealing with the mobs because he had grenades that he clearly showed. He had his henchman be caught, so? He could have just tipped the henchman off and the police catches him. And this "100% magic" BS is too show how crazy that Joker is and how Anarchy will cause 100% magic to happens with bad guys since the law is *beep*

reply

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

What? Jack Nicholson's joker was a different joker and so was the old two face. this comparison is nonsense.

Did you not bother to read the entire thread, including what I was replying to?

everyone who dies in marvel movies, has more than 70% chance of getting revived, or coming back or anything

The only real good guy death in a MCU film was in Dr Strange.



Are you talking about The Ancient One? At best you'd characterize her as a side-character and not a main character.

Either way, you are wrong. Unless a person comes back to life during the film or is announced as being alive in the sequel/next movie, they are dead until they are revealed to be alive.

So, Captain America:TFA - Bucky dies. No one knows differently and he doesn't come back in the next movie. The Avengers - Coulson dies and he hasn't been back to the Movie universe yet. Thor 2 - Frigga dies. Avengers AOU - Pietro dies. CA:CW - Sharon dies and we see Howard Stark's death.

I don't care but he is one of the best villains ever in terms of writing and acting.

It is your right to be wrong. Take away his makeup, suit, don't call him Joker and no one would have any clue as to who he was supposed to be. That is a fail.

Why do you think the people the Joker in SS?

I can't address this point not just because I haven't wasted my time seeing SS, but because it makes no sense.  (I know it was just a typo - but I really haven't seen SS yet. I won't until I can see it for free.)

He did not get killed during the bank robbery because no one could kill him.

Yeah, not even the bank manager with the sawed-off shotgun who took Joker and his crew by surprise.

He did not get killed when dealing with the mobs because he had grenades that he clearly showed.

And those hand grenades would have completely blown the entire restaurant to bits had the mob sent their goons out after Joker and shot him....

He had his henchman be caught, so? He could have just tipped the henchman off and the police catches him.

Ok, so maybe it wasn't a typo earlier. Are you drinking something or just trying to not make sense? For Joker's plan to work, the goon with the phone in his belly had to survive the chase/gun fight, had to be taken to the same jail as Joker, had to not be delayed in booking, had to be put in a cell close enough to Joker, and had to not whine about it hurting long enough that they didn't get him out of there and operate.

And this "100% magic" BS is too show how crazy that Joker is and how Anarchy will cause 100% magic to happens with bad guys since the law is

Ok, I don't think it is booze that you are on. It has to be something stronger. The Joker is crazy, yet he's able to plan things out to the Nth detail, including things which are beyond his control. That isn't crazy. At most that is being like a pyromaniac who isn't crazy - just loves to watch things burn.

Joker's plan didn't show he was crazy; just that he was an azzhole.

reply

[–] zaphod08 9 years ago

In my opinion, you could have removed the Batman specific characters and replaced them with identical ones, just with different names and it wouldn't have changed a thing. Ledger wasn't the Joker, he was a homicidal maniac in face paint. Batman relied on toys provided to him by someone else, and showed very little of the skills that made him a great character.

You couldn't remove Steve from the TWS without it being a totally different movie.

In the kingdom of the blind, you're the village idiot.

reply

[–] steverok 9 years ago

In a word .... "no".

reply