Nah, Dark Knight Rises was poorly-thought mish-mash of various Batman stories, characters that didn't need to be there and Christian Bale's ridiculous voice.

The only good thing it did was have a conclusion which meant those films don't have to leak into any more DC movie fiction, and even that ending horribly sucked.

It's satisfying to know the Dark Knight series isn't the start of the DC film universe and Bale isn't returning to be Bruce in the World's Finest movie.

Those films took themselves too seriously, and they suffered for it.

I don't even know what you're talking about in half of this post but I've seen very few people address Avengers long long list of flaws but I have seen many a person rave like it's the greatest film ever made.

There is no put up or shutup, just me here wondering how you can hate one movie, love another when the only differences between the two are in name.

:lol

But exactly, I cannot fathom why Transformers is so derided while Avengers gets a free ride, despite doing NOTHING to make it any better than Transformers. In many ways I'd say it was worse because at least Transformers intended to be a big dumb explosionfest, not a film that had been built up over years.

Because there are no similarities between the films aside from genre. Unless someone can swap the films behind your back and you legitimately can't tell the difference, because there's no point in bothering if you can't.

I'd love to hear the flaws Avengers is so abundantly filled with.

Okay.

No plot or characters. Everything is lifted from the comics, with no new takes, angles, imagination or well anything. Not only does it directly lift but it also does it in such a way that a majority of what is here will mean nothing to people who have never read the comics.

Loki had no motivations and was taken down in a gag.

We never really find out what the Tesseract is, what it does or how it works. Everything in this film works how it's supposed to do in the scene with no sense of coherency or continuity with the tech, magic, myths and rules.

Black Widow was useless and they gave her stupid Spider-Man like agility which only further showed how useless she was. Hawkeye was useless, so they made him evil which was stupid. Captain America does nothing. Thor, despite having the most amount of emotional investment in all this, has the emotional range of frying pan. Maria Hill is added to the cast to get shot at and do nothing. SHIELD are turned into the Red Shirts from Star Trek.

Minus a few interesting in fights, the movie rests on an action sequence with the Putty Patrollers with no real identifiable villain or truly epic final showdown.

The film is written like a bad comicbook balancing all action with lengthy and unnatural exposition.

The film doesn't need Loki and his unclear motivations, the film doesn't need a bloated action sequence straight out of a Michael Bay movie, the bringing together of The Avengers and then their subsequent squabble for power amongst themselves makes for a far more interesting story, much better set pieces and much more emotional involvement.

Ultimately, that is one of the greatest failings with the film for me. There is no tension. The Avengers are the most powerful weapons on the planet, their only threat is themselves, since the movie went for one villain and an army of goons, there is never any sense that the heroes will lose. I mean we all know they won't regardless, but even aside from the heroes never fail thing, even in the movie itself everything that is thrown at the Avengers barely causes a scratch, to the point where it becomes almost a metaplot point. Coulson claims he needed to die, and he does, not just in the movies narrative to bring the team together, but in the movie externally too, to provide tension and emotion, it's the only moment the Avengers stop steamrolling through everything. That is why The Avengers needed more squabbling and less Putty Patrol. In the end however I can't help but feel his death doesn't really work, the first hour and a half is basically a pulpy, pantomime not all that far away from the 1940's Superhero serials..then Coulson dies and it is like we are in an entirely different movie, like his death was slotted in at the end when Whedon realised reading back that his screenplay was actually pretty boring, although there are a few throwaway lines here and there that The Avengers are loose cannons and so on, there is no real sense that they are inexperienced idiots, throwing their weight around without thinking of the wider picture leading to Coulson's death which brings it all into focus which would have worked, it just feels like, as I said 'Wow this is boring, let's kill a beloved character!' with the last hour meandering around seemingly unsure of what to do with itself, so explosions!

No, it's not. The Avengers film shares little in common with the comics, with the characters being quite different iterations of the characters. From Cap not being part of the original Avengers to Fury being the Ultimate version that was only created in 2000 to Antman's complete absence, the film was all it's own, not just a comic plot brought to life.

This is more how one felt concerning Loki. To some, it could be argued that his entire motivation is to be the king and conqueror that his father once was, to others, it could be his ego that makes him want to be seen as someone with value and power, to another it could him being a petulant child doing stuff with no rhyme or reason.

It's a source of power. They made that incredibly clear, and they only used it as such. They weren't breaking their own rules, it only did one thing, and it was only used for one thing. As a power source.

You're judging a character's worth by how big of a laser they can shoot? Because Hawkeye called shots and made sure the team knew where the army was moving, Black Widow, while not the most vital member during the climax, was relatively important in gathering the members, most notably Iron Man and the Hulk, and Captain America lead. He kept his mind on the mission, he made sure civilians were safe, and he always stepped up.
Thor is a fair enough point, and Maria Hill was always like that.

Just because Loki wasn't the ultimate fight during the climax doesn't mean there wasn't an identifiable villain. Additionally, the point of the team dynamic is just that, a team. It reduces the impact when it goes down to a 6 on 1 showdown.

Obviously not if you didn't know what the Tesse-"Greatest power source on the planet"-ract's purpose was.

I'll agree that the film's best strength was the initial lack of synergy and clashing personalities of the characters.
I don't think it would have been the better direction to take the film in, though, because if it was written in a more realistic manner, Thor, Cap, and Iron Man would not get along in the slightest, with Thor and Stark being hard headed enough to just up and leave if not given everything demanded.

That's the point of the Avengers. They're not the X-Men, they're not the Fantastic Four. They're a group of individually recognized and decorated heroes who join together to stop [X]. They're supposed to be the unstoppable force that charges in. The squabbling over ideals, the scale of their threats, the essential arm twisting until they become team players is what the Avengers handle. Where the X-Men's personal issues stem from their love dodecahedrons, where the Fantastic Four's infighting comes from Reed being the worst leader imaginable, the Avenger's personal problems come from clashing ideals because these are people who don't need the team to succeed as a hero, and they know it, but the threat is large enough for them to realize they need to team to win this particular problem.

They mixed up the team and smashed together different versions of the heroes from different stories, granted, but I have no fucking idea why and it doesn't make it original or fresh to smash in classic heroes with Ultimate ones, it's just baffling.

Not just the tesseract, it's been a while since I've seen the film, but Loki's staff if I remember correctly had six very different powers over the course of the film with not a single explanation as to why.

Hawkeye's strengths were there, but his personality was ripped out in doing so, and that rubbed me up the wrong way. Hawkeye has a much bigger personality than basically everyone on the team bar Iron Man, so to take that away from him was a shit, shit move.

You could have achieved just as much with just Iron Man, Hulk and Thor, the movie made little to no attempt to establish why the others needed to be there. Often bending their own rules to make them fit.

I never identified Loki as a focused villain because he had no motivations and was taken out in a gag, only for the Putty Pattrolers to be chucked in at the end lining up to be knocked down. There is a reason you fought the Putties BEFORE the monster of the week.

The Avengers always had villains who put up a fight, who would kick their asses, Loki was completely useless and no villain ever provided any kind of tension or put the Avengers on their toes so the film was boring.

I think The Avengers greatest strength was the prequels. The prequels did a fantastic job of building this world of heroes, villains, and science, enough so that when a movie-goer walked in having watched them, they were already invested. Now, that's not the case for everyone, (my friend had only watched the first two Iron Man films before The Avengers,) but it was for many.

I feel like The Avengers was more like the final act for a very long play in some respects. We've seen the characters go through their journeys, conquer their inner demons, and now we want the epic conclusion. I loved The Avengers, but I also loved the Transformers trilogy. They were works of illusion and story-telling that kept me entertained, and I appreciate their existence for that. They were not ment to teach me anything, they were meant to entertain me, a high-school freshman (soon to be sophomore).

I did a Star Wars OT day today. Since these movies have been discussed before, I'll just leave my scores of:

Star Wars: 8/10
Empire: 10/10
Return: 9/10

BTW, completely disagree on the Dark Knight Trilogy. Them taking themselves seriously is what makes them so great. It was finally a Batman series the way he should have been done on movie format 60 years ago. And the ending to Rises was great because it was an ending. I don't agree with how everything happened in the movie (such as Marion being Talia was not a twist, it was expected the moment she was casted), but the ending was one of the best parts of it. Regardless, The Dark Knight is the greatest super hero movie to date and will probably not be topped for at least 50 years.

Oh, Bale's voice is not by his choice, but rather the suit. Bale explained in an interview that the mask is extremely tight, making it impossible for him to breath from his nose, so he sounds that way because that is the only way he can sound. He also said the costume retracts in the cold, so that makes it even worse.

Lastly, I have no idea how you can compare Avengers and Bayformers at all. One is a movie that was full of lovable characters who received development even though they already gained it in their own movies vs a movie about insect looking robots that have no development at all and do nothing but show off their balls with a horny kid screaming, "Nononononononononononononononono" all of the time. Oh, and we learned what the Tessarac was IN CAPTAIN AMERICA!!! Did you not watch it? It sounds like you were just nitpicking it just to nitpick it. Loki's staff is that way because HE IS A GOD!! Do you not know anything about gods? Grab a f'ing book on mythology and read.

Although the Dark Knight was a great, great film, I dunno whether it's gonna be 'the best for 50 years', largely because the Batman trilogy weren't really superhero films. Sure there was a hero in a costume, a villain in one as well but most of the time the whole 'superhero' part of the movies felt tacked on at best, and it all went downhill in Rises when Nolan actually read the comics...

Picking out individual, tiny, inconsequential details from the two films doesn't make an argument. They are similar in the wider picture, big budget, soulless CGI titans built entirely around selling merchandise and entertaining masses with explosions. Just because the two films are wearing different outfits, doesn't make them any less the same.

And okay if you want to reduce my whole argument down to 'nitpicks' - to which you clearly have no idea what that word means - we're done here, so maybe you should go read a 'f'ing book' called the dictionary.