Movies Which Sequel AGED BETTER: Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) OR The Dark Knight (2008)?

[PanSimpson]

Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002):

The Dark Knight (2008):

Serious question, I think this is a PERFECT comparison. Which movie do you think AGED BETTER and WHY?

Personally, I'm going with Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) because not only was it A HUGE PART of my CHILDHOOD and reminds me of the EXCELLENT YEAR that was 2002, but it's mainly the sole reason I still defend the Prequels and still even consider myself a Star Wars fan. To me, Attack Of The Clones WAS AHEAD OF IT'S TIME and EXTREMELY UNDERRATED and GETS FAR TOO MUCH HATE by Star Wars fans.

As far The Dark Knight goes, outside Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, it's got NOTHING GOING FOR IT and it's a TOTAL PRODUCT of the Late-2000's Era of Movies and IT GREATLY BENEFITED from coming out at a time when standards for cinema had hit AN ALL TIME LOW.

Sorry, if that came off as EXTREMELY PRETENTIOUS, but I'm NOT a big of Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies or a big Christopher Nolan fan in general whereas I'm a HUGE Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) FAN.

 

[Beerus]

The Dark Knight, by a landslide. lol

 

[Super Kami Guru]

I have to agree with Dark Knight. Wasn't a Batman Beyond fan, but Dark Knight was great.

 

[LividJay]

Dark Knight for sure. As I mentioned the other other thread, Star Wars Ep 1 - 3 = eating poop in a diaper.

 

[Mustafar Reginald]

I won't vote since I haven't seen Attack of the Clones, but The Dark Knight was easily my favourite of the Nolan trilogy, and I personally felt Aaron Eckhart was the best part of that movie, so I don't really agree that Ledger was all it had going for it.

 

[LividJay]

I personally felt Aaron Eckhart was the best part of that movie, so I don't really agree that Ledger was all it had going for it.

I agree that Aaron Eckhart did an amazing portrayal of Harvey Dent. Ledger's performance definitely was phenomenal, too.