Poll of the Day > Martin Scorsese: Marvel movies are not 'cinema'

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/04/martin-scorsese-says-marvel-movies-are-not-cinema

Martin Scorsese, one of cinemas most venerated current directors, has decried superhero movies the dominant force in todays industry. The director of films such as Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas told Empire magazine that his attempts to get up to speed with contemporary superhero films had failed.

I tried, you know? the director said when asked if he had seen Marvels movies. But thats not cinema.

He continued: Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isnt the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.

Earlier this year, Avengers: Endgame became the highest grossing film in history after topping $2.8bn at the global box office (fifth highest after adjusting for inflation). Eight other titles from the same studio feature in the Top 30 (when factored without inflation).

Marvel's head Kevin Feige last year defended his films against the kind of criticism levelled by Scorsese, saying that the seriess lack of major awards was no indication of a lack of quality or ambition.

Maybe its easy to dismiss VFX or flying people or spaceships or billion dollar grosses, Feige said. I think it is easy to say that you have already been awarded in a certain way. [Alfred] Hitchcock never won best director, so its very nice, but it doesnt mean everything. I would much rather be in a room full of engaged fans.
---

Different strokes for different folks
---

Old man with an old man opinion

Doesnt mean he isnt a great filmmaker
---

You can find someone with this kind of opinion in any kind of entertainment(my minds blanking for the right word), like books, music, tv, video games and whatnot.
---

It's mainstream garbage now.
---

I mean, they're essentially the fast food of the film industry but there's nothing wrong with that. They're not necessarily trying to create high art. They're creating something that's consumable en masse.
---

Mead posted...

Doesnt mean he isnt a great filmmaker

Though there is an argument to be made that his best years are long since behind him.

Filmmaking seems to be one of those aspects of creative endeavour where, the older you get, and the more successful you get, the worse you actually become at doing it. I've referred to this as "The Lucas Effect" in the past - whether it's complacency, or just the loss of youth leading to less imagination and creative spark, or life itself grinding you down and sapping your energy and enthusiasm, there seems to be a point where you stop getting better through skill and experience, and start sloping downward again. You can often see it with certain writers as well.

I'd argue that Scorsese peaked decades ago. Even the article being quoted sort of hints at that, considering it lists his work to imply his credentials, and they're naming two films from the 70s and one from the 80s. When trying to think of his best, most iconic work, they didn't name any of the films he's done in the last 20 years, and have to go back to the movie he made while I was in middle school and the movies he made a decade before that.

A lot of that particular clique of auteur directors - Lucas, Scorsese, Coppola, de Palma - had their best work in the 70s and 80s and have kind of been coasting downhill ever since. Even Spielberg (the most mainstream and "accessible" of that group) sort of cooled off post 2000 or so.
---

they're popcorn flicks. they existed before marvel and they'll exist after it. sometimes you just wanna have fun
---

he can talk all the shit he wants when his movies are that critically successful

but they aren't so he needs to shut the fuck up
---

I mean, art vs entertainment for sure...

But the laughable part is fucking Martin Scorsese acting like his fucking films have ever been anything other than the entertainment side of that. HA

not enough swearing in them?
---

He's not wrong.
---

Well, they're not "art" in certain senses so, if you view cinema as art, then therefore they wouldn't be cinema.

Bulbasaur posted...

he can talk all the shit he wants when his movies are that critically successful

He's literally won an Oscar, among other awards, for his films so what the fuck are you talking about?
---

Pretty sure I saw them in a cinema

---

Pretty sure people aren't going to Marvel movies expecting Shakespeare.
---

Aaantlion posted...

He's literally won an Oscar, among other awards, for his films so what the fuck are you talking about?

To be fair, he didn't really deserve it. At least, not for the movie he won it for. It was more one of those cases where the Academy gives a win to a director/actor for a lesser work as a sort of apology for snubbing them previously for their much better works.

It's one of the things that tends to get brought up when people talk about why the Oscars are absolute horseshit.
---

brestugo posted...

It isnt the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being

Ummm... der.

Did he just figure that out?
---

i like the avengers movies but yeah, they arent exactly groundbreaking. still extremely impressive that they brought so many beloved characters to life without pissing off the majority of the fanbase. people are so quick to shit on and unfairly criticize everything these days.

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

people are so quick to shit on and unfairly criticize everything these days.

Gotta go with this.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Aaantlion posted...

He's literally won an Oscar, among other awards, for his films so what the fuck are you talking about?

To be fair, he didn't really deserve it. At least, not for the movie he won it for. It was more one of those cases where the Academy gives a win to a director/actor for a lesser work as a sort of apology for snubbing them previously for their much better works.

It's one of the things that tends to get brought up when people talk about why the Oscars are absolute horseshit.

To be fair, the charge was that his films weren't critically successful, not whether or not they deserve to be critically successful. And despite decades of criticisms, the Oscars are still the pinnacle of critical reception. Disney's CEO can publicly talk about not caring whether the Marvel movies win awards (which, by the way, could be seen as tying directly into why it's not cinema), but you know they piss their pants every time they get a nomination. All that aside, Scorsesee has a lot more than just an Oscar.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

i like the avengers movies but yeah, they arent exactly groundbreaking. still extremely impressive that they brought so many beloved characters to life without pissing off the majority of the fanbase. people are so quick to shit on and unfairly criticize everything these days.

None of which makes them cinema.
---

Aaantlion posted...

but you know they piss their pants every time they get a nomination.

I'm sure they'd rather win a billion dollars over a movie award.
---

what is the definition of cinema?

---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Aaantlion posted...

but you know they piss their pants every time they get a nomination.

I'm sure they'd rather win a billion dollars over a movie award.

You can be extremely profitable and get accolades while still producing crap, these things aren't mutually exclusive. After all, look at James Cameron's Avatar. More importantly, awards help you make even more money. That's half the point to awards.
---

They're well crafted popcorn flicks.

They don't interest me at all really though some of the handful i've seen were good.

spiderverse was the best marvel movie
---

I dont care for either of these things, but Id pick Marvel over a Scorsese.
---

Aaantlion posted...

Well, they're not "art" in certain senses so, if you view cinema as art, then therefore they wouldn't be cinema.

Bulbasaur posted...

he can talk all the shit he wants when his movies are that critically successful

He's literally won an Oscar, among other awards, for his films so what the fuck are you talking about?

and how much money has his movies made

how much

an oscar means fuck all when you're comparing it to billions of dollars.
---

Aaantlion posted...

To be fair, the charge was that his films weren't critically successful, not whether or not they deserve to be critically successful.

Oh no, I totally agree. I was just expanding on the point, because that particular Oscar win was controversial even when it happened and has been kind of shit on ever since.

Like I mentioned earlier, it is kind of telling that the article in question cited Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas - those are the films he's more known for, and that tend to get universal acclaim. Had he won for one of those, people wouldn't have poo-poo'd it as much.



Aaantlion posted...

None of which makes them cinema.

Ehh, "cinema" is literally just "motion picture" - it's derived from kinetic. If I filmed myself eating breakfast it would technically be cinema. Shitty Internet videos are technically cinema.

We can argue whether or not they're "art", but gamers of all people really shouldn't be throwing stones in that particular glass house.

For the record, I'd agree that the Marvel movies aren't really "art", but then again I also side with Ebert in the argument that 99.9% of video games aren't art either, no matter how salty that makes gamers whenever someone says it. I tend to differentiate between art made to make a statement or express emotion/ideology and make an audience FEEL something, as opposed to light entertainment which is more intended to simply pander to an audience or reap financial rewards.

But that's a far more complicated and subjective discussion, and you're never going to get everyone to agree to an objective standard. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's opinion on pornography, "I can't define art but I know it when I see it".
---

I just like when things go boom. Plus, in the Iron Man movies, Tony Stark is so CUTE!
---

movies and cinema are the same thing. pretentious people say cinema
---

Bulbasaur posted...

and how much money has his movies made

That's commercial success, not critical acclaim.
---

Aaantlion posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Aaantlion posted...

but you know they piss their pants every time they get a nomination.

I'm sure they'd rather win a billion dollars over a movie award.

You can be extremely profitable and get accolades while still producing crap, these things aren't mutually exclusive. After all, look at James Cameron's Avatar. More importantly, awards help you make even more money. That's half the point to awards.

So Avatar proves that money making movies do well at the Oscars? If you look at the history of the Oscars overall 99 times out of 100 it goes to a lower budget flick usually a drama. Big budget flicks no matter what at most get recognition from a technical standpoint like best special effects or best costumes, they have gotten very few nods for best director or best picture.

Just because James Cameron and Peter Jackson pulled off best pictures on a big budget movie doesn't mean it's a common occurrence.

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Pretty sure people aren't going to Marvel movies expecting Shakespeare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8SLT5fmreU" data-time="
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

i like the avengers movies but yeah, they arent exactly groundbreaking. still extremely impressive that they brought so many beloved characters to life without pissing off the majority of the fanbase. people are so quick to shit on and unfairly criticize everything these days.

What i would say is "groundbreaking" about the MCU is a fully connected cinematic universe that came together for two major films, with little to no inconsistency between them. That is a feat almost impossible to do. They had most of the details planned out 10 years ago, i am sure there was changes, and big ones, but they knew they had a story they wanted to tell in the first three phases.
---

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Pretty sure people aren't going to Marvel movies expecting Shakespeare.

Wasn't Shakespeare also targeting the unwashed masses when it was new and that's why the theory that he's actually Lord Byron keeps popping up? That is, a nobleman would need a pseudonym because it'd be improper for him to write it?

Ogurisama posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

Pretty sure people aren't going to Marvel movies expecting Shakespeare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8SLT5fmreU" data-time="

Touch
---

Bulbasaur posted...

Aaantlion posted...

Well, they're not "art" in certain senses so, if you view cinema as art, then therefore they wouldn't be cinema.

Bulbasaur posted...

he can talk all the shit he wants when his movies are that critically successful

He's literally won an Oscar, among other awards, for his films so what the fuck are you talking about?

and how much money has his movies made

how much

an oscar means fuck all when you're comparing it to billions of dollars.

So basically you don't understand what "critically successful" means and have therefore confused it for commercially successful? And within the last decade, at least one of his movies has made $400m despite not being part of a big-name franchise where the name alone sells the movie which, you know, also kinda comes back to his point.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Oh no, I totally agree. I was just expanding on the point, because that particular Oscar win was controversial even when it happened and has been kind of shit on ever since.

Well, his movies have won other Oscars so you can pick one of those if you'd prefer.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

We can argue whether or not they're "art", but gamers of all people really shouldn't be throwing stones in that particular glass house.

Why you'd specifically discriminate against gamers is silly on its own merits, but more importantly it overlooks that much of the board doesn't really game any more anyway. I haven't been a gamer in... well, a few years, anyway.

Monopoman posted...

So Avatar proves that money making movies do well at the Oscars? If you look at the history of the Oscars overall 99 times out of 100 it goes to a lower budget flick usually a drama. Big budget flicks no matter what at most get recognition from a technical standpoint like best special effects or best costumes, they have gotten very few nods for best director or best picture.

No, it proves that they CAN do well, which is literally what I said in very explicit terms. There's absolutely no reason why blockbusters can't also be award-winners and pretending you have to pick between one or the other is a great example of a false dilemma. Titanic, one of the biggest blockbusters of all time, also won ELEVEN Oscars.
---

No, it proves that they CAN do well, which is literally what I said in very explicit terms. There's absolutely no reason why blockbusters can't also be award-winners and pretending you have to pick between one or the other is a great example of a false dilemma. Titanic, one of the biggest blockbusters of all time, also won ELEVEN Oscars.

That's all well and good if the Oscars gave the same credit to large budget movies, the Oscars don't like movies that usually take big budgets.

You act like the Oscar committee treats all films equally when they really prefer movies that are about things that don't take a $200 million dollar budget to make. Shit the only reason most of the bigger budget films get nominated is the regular people were always upset that in 99% of years none of the movies everyone went and see got nominations for best picture.

I mean I guess they could have spent $250 million dollars making something like Green Book or Moonlight but the majority of the money would go to just actors since those movies did not need large budgets to be made. Remember kids the people that actually have the power to vote in winners in the Oscars are mostly in their 70's+ and they aren't down with what the kids like.

Marvel movies are just flicks. But Scorsese has never made Cinma or Kino.
---

like i said in the movie board, it depends on the viewer. dude seems bitter saying this stuff.

---

Dude is allowed to throw fire at whatever he likes.

Man imagine being famous, anything you say even if its just an opinion all of a sudden makes you an asshole even if its mild as Marvel Movies suck. I agree with him. I used to be really into Marvel Movies but when you watch enough of them you notice the reoccurring formulas and notice how lazy a lot of it is.
Back in the day Ironman was pretty huge. Outside of the Spiderman movies, no modern superhero movies really tried to step too far away from realism (It was all about that dark gritty Batman). So when Marvel movies kept being pushed out that broke this trend it was exciting. But now they cant seem to make a Marvel movie without making half the movie a comedy.
---

deoxxys posted...

But now they cant seem to make a Marvel movie without making half the movie a comedy.

That's what Marvel is. They made Thanos a serious character to appease you guys.
---

I mean he isn't wrong, but he acts like this is some new thing when it has been going on since the start of "cinema". Those film noir movies that he probably thinks are amazing were considered low budget smut films when they first came out. Not to mention the highest grossing movies of the 30's were Universal monster movies.

The actual "thoughtful" stuff? Completely lost to time for the most part.
---

Dikitain posted...

Those film noir movies that he probably thinks are amazing were considered low budget smut films when they first came out.

His favorite movies are.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
8 (1963)
Ashes and Diamonds (1958)
Citizen Kane (1941)
The Leopard (1963)
Pais (1946)
The Red Shoes (1948)
The River (1951)
Salvatore Giuliano (1962)
The Searchers (1956)
Ugetsu (1953)
Vertigo (1958)
---

Back in my day movies were real movies.
---

Bulbasaur posted...

he can talk all the shit he wants when his movies are that critically successful

but they aren't so he needs to shut the fuck up

helly, my guy, i know its kind of your thing to be wrong but the dude has created some of the most iconic movies in history and won a shit ton of oscars

i mean, come on helly
---

He only has one Oscar but he's still a legend but irregardless of his opinion I'll continue to enjoy his movies and Marvel movies.

---

afrodude77 posted...

He only has one Oscar but he's still a legend but irregardless of his opinion I'll continue to enjoy his movies and Marvel movies.

For best director, yes. But his movies have won a ton. In any case - Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, The Departed. That's some stuff.
---

"How dare people like these movies without asking me first!" - Martin Scorsese

Monopoman posted...

No, it proves that they CAN do well, which is literally what I said in very explicit terms. There's absolutely no reason why blockbusters can't also be award-winners and pretending you have to pick between one or the other is a great example of a false dilemma. Titanic, one of the biggest blockbusters of all time, also won ELEVEN Oscars.

That's all well and good if the Oscars gave the same credit to large budget movies, the Oscars don't like movies that usually take big budgets.

You act like the Oscar committee treats all films equally when they really prefer movies that are about things that don't take a $200 million dollar budget to make. Shit the only reason most of the bigger budget films get nominated is the regular people were always upset that in 99% of years none of the movies everyone went and see got nominations for best picture.

I mean I guess they could have spent $250 million dollars making something like Green Book or Moonlight but the majority of the money would go to just actors since those movies did not need large budgets to be made. Remember kids the people that actually have the power to vote in winners in the Oscars are mostly in their 70's+ and they aren't down with what the kids like.

Treats all films equally is a stretch because they favor certain genres over others. However, budget isn't something that hurts a film. The bullshit that the budget gets spent on is usually the bigger issue, since it generally just goes for special effects and those tend to only win awards in certain categories. And while recent Best Picture winners have generally had budgets of no more than $25m, it's worth remembering that other films *nominated* for Best Picture have had substantially higher budgets. Wolf of Wall Street, for instance, had a $100m budget... and, while it didn't win Best Picture, it took home other awards. In fact, you seem to forget that awards other than Best Picture exist >_>

And Black Panther received nominations, so clearly it can happen. The thing is that Marvel doesn't give a shit about art, which is why it usually doesn't even get a nod. And the fact it doesn't care about art goes a long way in explaining why people are so dismissive of it.

(It's also worth noting that Heath Ledger posthumously won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his work as the Joker in the big budget TDK, but it's debatable whether he would have been passed over if he hadn't died.)
---