The Dark Knight was better than the Dark Knight Rises
Debate Rounds (3)
1) This is an opinion based debate.
2) I will offer examples of why I thought the Dark Knight was better, while con will either counter my examples, or give his own.
3) No profanity.
4) Round one is acceptance and debating begins in round two.
I assume you will explain your version of the meaning of 'better' in round two... I think it should be based on not just the better storyline but better method of making the movie and representation of inner character motives as well.
All the factors that contribute to calling a movie "great." You suggested we include the method in which the movie was made, and a better representation of inner motive, we will include these. Remember, this is an opinion based debate and sources are allowed but unnecessary.
By accepting this debate I'll assume you thought the Dark Knight Rises was better. I thought every aspect of the Dark Rises was worse then The Dark Knight, including the two things you mentioned.
1) As to better film making methods, the Dark Knight Rises had multiple flaws. One, the fighting choreography was a major downgrade from the previous film. Watching the Dark Knight Rises, I noticed something interesting about the "war scene." When the two armies first impact, not a single cop engages a henchman. Some of the cops even run through henchmen, pushing them aside. Throughout that whole fight, watching the background fighting was like watching a very poor professional wrestling match. Another part of the fighting that left me disappointed was the way Batman fought. It was the same moves he used in the previous two movies.
A smaller flaw made was a lack of explanation of how Bruce Wayne was able to get back into Gotham after he escaped the pit. He climbed out of the hole, and the next time you saw him was inside the city, speaking to catwoman.
2) A better representation of an inner-motive. Notice both movies motives are found in the titles, The Dark Knight, which meant that he was a hero who wasn't afraid to take the blame to save his city. He was a "silent protector."
In the next film, you find the word "Rises." Which meant that the Dark Knight would rise from hell to save his people one last time. That, if necessary, he would sacrifice himself for his people.
Now don't get me wrong, the pit of death was an excellent representation of this motive. My problem with it is that it almost repeats the motive to the first film. In which Wayne decides to risk his life and fight crime as a vigilante, knowing that he may sacrifice his body to do so.
The Dark Knight brought forward Batman's arch nemesis. The Joker. Played by Heath Ledger, the Joker did his part well, which was to provide the batman's exact opposite. After you put the main villain in jail, bad guys can only go down hill from there. Bane was ok, but that's stretching it. The only way they could make a bigger crisis then in the Dark Knight was to make the problem an atom bomb, which has been used so many times, by so many different movies. Robin was introduced, but Robin's real name in the comics wasn't even Robin so I don't know what Nolan was thinking there. Catwoman was fine, she was always a big character in the comics. Finally, Talia. I was very disappointed when they made her the real villain of the movie, after all the Bane build up that is.
4) Storyline: You can't even argue this one. The Dark Knight's storyline with Harvey Dent's corruption was phenomenal.
Batman was represented better as well, he stuck to the dark, and attacked using fear. Which was what made him Batman in the first movie too. His "all out war" logic was never Batman's approach to solving problems in anything.
Over to you con.
Antichrist forfeited this round.
Antichrist forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.