Current Events > Martin Scorsese pens op-ed for NYT about Marvel not being cinema...

(+) Yeah! (+)

IloveJesus posted...

averagejoel posted...

this is a definition of cinema used by more serious movie people

No, this is a definition used by people who are like-minded fart sniffers. It isn't the generally accepted definition of the word and it probably never will be.
averagejoel posted...

this indicates to me that you didn't understand what he said

I don't particularly care what you think of my position, when I don't consider yours to be in any way tenable.

His definition of 'cinema' is ultimately a pretty minor point in the wider oped and to focus in on it so much suggests you either didn't read or didn't comprehend it.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Zithers posted...

You think Roger Moore Bond movies are conspiracy thrillers and not goofy action movies?

They're the same type of conspiracy thriller. Not every conspiracy thriller has to be Casablanca.

You think Casablanca is a conspiracy thriller?
---

Malfunction posted...

IloveJesus posted...

averagejoel posted...

this is a definition of cinema used by more serious movie people

No, this is a definition used by people who are like-minded fart sniffers. It isn't the generally accepted definition of the word and it probably never will be.
averagejoel posted...

this indicates to me that you didn't understand what he said

I don't particularly care what you think of my position, when I don't consider yours to be in any way tenable.

His definition of 'cinema' is ultimately a pretty minor point in the wider oped and to focus in on it so much suggests you either didn't read or didn't comprehend it.

lol that dude blocked me
---

https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/we-convinced-martin-scorsese-the-skrulls-were-a-metaphor-for-italians-and-now-hes-really-into-marvel/
---

Zithers posted...

IronMansCarKeys posted...

Dont you dare fucking tell me movies like jurrasic park and Indiana jones are cinema, but winter soldier, black panther, guardians, Iron Man, Civil war etc. arent

Have all the seats

Imagine thinking MCU has the same level of visual storytelling craft that Spielberg does LOL!!!!

They're both fucking cinema my guy. How you rank them is your business.

Like, I hate reality TV, but I wouldnt deny that its television lmao

This is some "rap isnt real music" level of tone deafness and arrogance. It reeks of a man scared of a landscape he no longer dominates and steers the direction of

UnfairRepresent posted...

Fuck off with that pretenious shit. It's just a lazy and stupid way to feel superior to others

I have no vested interest in filmmaking.

You want to compare art and trash?

Marvel movies and the Godfather, or Citizen Kane, or...you know there's not much point going on since we all know what great cinema is.
---

I'm pretty sure Scorcese includes a lot of Spielberg's work in his criticisms considering the other thing he points out is Universal Studios.
---

IronMansCarKeys posted...

Zithers posted...

IronMansCarKeys posted...

Dont you dare fucking tell me movies like jurrasic park and Indiana jones are cinema, but winter soldier, black panther, guardians, Iron Man, Civil war etc. arent

Have all the seats

Imagine thinking MCU has the same level of visual storytelling craft that Spielberg does LOL!!!!

They're both fucking cinema my guy. How you rank them is your business.

Like, I hate reality TV, but I wouldnt deny that its television lmao

This is some "rap isnt real music" level of tone deafness and arrogance. It reeks of a man scared of a landscape he no longer dominates and steers the direction of

Spielberg movies are very clearly Spielberg movies tho based on his craft and common themes he revisits.

You can't tell directors apart in the Marvel movies. The movies all look the same and hit the same notes.

This is what we talk about when we talk about cinema. Where you have a singular vision from an artist instead of something that has to appeal to China and is easily marketable.
---

Zithers posted...

You can't tell directors apart in the Marvel movies. The movies all look the same and hit the same notes.

Taiki Waititi, James Gunn and Ryan Coogler all have a very distinct feel in each of their movies that I think will carry over to any of their sequels too.
---

Darmik posted...

Zithers posted...

You can't tell directors apart in the Marvel movies. The movies all look the same and hit the same notes.

Taiki Waititi, James Gunn and Ryan Coogler all have a very distinct feel in each of their movies that I think will carry over to any of their sequels too.

having only seen black panther: wow, ryan coogler must be horrible at directing
---

I dont view marvel movies any differently than mindless action movies from the eighties about killer androids from the future.

It's a Hollywood blockbuster, of course it isn't pushing the boundaries of storytelling in film.

That said, I do agree all these super hero movies fucking suck.
---

If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course theyre going to want more of that one kind of thing.

But they AREN'T being given only one thing!
Fucking idiot...
---

Sphyx posted...

If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course theyre going to want more of that one kind of thing.

But they AREN'T being given only one thing!
Fucking idiot...

5 of the top 10 and 7 of the top 13 highest grossing movies of last year involved superheroes

within those top 13 was also a 10th star war, 5th jurassic park movie, a 6th mission impossible movie (which is actually great), and three remakes/reboots (the grinch (the third version of the story), a star is born (the fifth version of the story), and jumanji).

sure sounds like a lot of the same fucking thing
---

Capebros mad

This is so dumb. I don't even like MCU movies, or action movies really for that matter -- but I think he sounds like an absolute wiener. I like films all across the gamut of cinema -- from high art, avant-garde films to the sleaziest exploitation and zero budget SOV stuff.

Even if Marvel films may not have a distinct style on the auteurs' part -- to say they're not art or cinema is absurd and totally sounds like a wienery kid with a bowl cut saying "rap isn't real music." Writing a successful film and creating a universe/atmosphere requires some talent and thought. Anyone working on these films has some degree of talent - even if their endgame (pun intended) is money. It's no different than writing an earworm catchy pop song -- sure it's not "high art," but it still takes some talent and knowledge of the medium.

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look. It's also absurd that some people commenting here are suggesting that these popcorn flicks are detrimental to the medium -- as if film patronage is limited or exclusive. If you watch one film it doesn't mean you're incapable of supporting or watching a different film. There are people that literally go to the theater multiple times a week.

I definitely don't like MCU films, just like I could give a shit less about Harry Potter films, or Lord of the Ring films, or Star Wars films, etc. But I'm not going to try and feign some sort of superiority over it or pretend the people involved in making those films didn't have any talent or vision.

bobbaaay posted...

I definitely don't like MCU films, just like I could give a s*** less about Harry Potter films, or Lord of the Ring films, or Star Wars films, etc. But I'm not going to try and feign some sort of superiority over it .

Why not? You totally should
---

Are people still tweeting that Martin Scorsese & Frank Coppola are racists because theyre criticizing Disneys Marvel movies (which happen to have diverse casts)?
---

bobbaaay posted...

This is so dumb. I don't even like MCU movies, or action movies really for that matter -- but I think he sounds like an absolute wiener. I like films all across the gamut of cinema -- from high art, avant-garde films to the sleaziest exploitation and zero budget SOV stuff.

Even if Marvel films may not have a distinct style on the auteurs' part -- to say they're not art or cinema is absurd and totally sounds like a wienery kid with a bowl cut saying "rap isn't real music." Writing a successful film and creating a universe/atmosphere requires some talent and thought. Anyone working on these films has some degree of talent - even if their endgame (pun intended) is money. It's no different than writing an earworm catchy pop song -- sure it's not "high art," but it still takes some talent and knowledge of the medium.

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look. It's also absurd that some people commenting here are suggesting that these popcorn flicks are detrimental to the medium -- as if film patronage is limited or exclusive. If you watch one film it doesn't mean you're incapable of supporting or watching a different film. There are people that literally go to the theater multiple times a week.

I definitely don't like MCU films, just like I could give a shit less about Harry Potter films, or Lord of the Ring films, or Star Wars films, etc. But I'm not going to try and feign some sort of superiority over it or pretend the people involved in making those films didn't have any talent or vision.

it is, and he talks about that in the piece. did you even read it?

i also don't get why everyone brings up star wars, harry potter, etc. he isn't saying the movies aren't cinema because they are expensive or about superheroes. its because they are focus tested to death and lack a unifying vision. again - he talks about this in the article. seriously - did anyone actually read it?
---

konokonohamaru posted...

bobbaaay posted...

I definitely don't like MCU films, just like I could give a s*** less about Harry Potter films, or Lord of the Ring films, or Star Wars films, etc. But I'm not going to try and feign some sort of superiority over it .

Why not? You totally should

I mean - I laugh until I'm crying at Freddy Got Fingered. I also own a VHS copy of Encino Man in french.

Zithers posted...

bobbaaay posted...

This is so dumb. I don't even like MCU movies, or action movies really for that matter -- but I think he sounds like an absolute wiener. I like films all across the gamut of cinema -- from high art, avant-garde films to the sleaziest exploitation and zero budget SOV stuff.

Even if Marvel films may not have a distinct style on the auteurs' part -- to say they're not art or cinema is absurd and totally sounds like a wienery kid with a bowl cut saying "rap isn't real music." Writing a successful film and creating a universe/atmosphere requires some talent and thought. Anyone working on these films has some degree of talent - even if their endgame (pun intended) is money. It's no different than writing an earworm catchy pop song -- sure it's not "high art," but it still takes some talent and knowledge of the medium.

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look. It's also absurd that some people commenting here are suggesting that these popcorn flicks are detrimental to the medium -- as if film patronage is limited or exclusive. If you watch one film it doesn't mean you're incapable of supporting or watching a different film. There are people that literally go to the theater multiple times a week.

I definitely don't like MCU films, just like I could give a shit less about Harry Potter films, or Lord of the Ring films, or Star Wars films, etc. But I'm not going to try and feign some sort of superiority over it or pretend the people involved in making those films didn't have any talent or vision.

it is, and he talks about that in the piece. did you even read it?

i also don't get why everyone brings up star wars, harry potter, etc. he isn't saying the movies aren't cinema because they are expensive or about superheroes. its because they are focus tested to death and lack a unifying vision. again - he talks about this in the article. seriously - did anyone actually read it?

I read the quote, and I know what he's saying. I'm not a fucking idiot.
I understand he's saying that they're formulaic and cater to their audiences. That doesn't change anything I'm saying, and it still makes him a wiener.
I still also don't understand how he can suggest that patronage of one film limits patronage of another.

bobbaaay posted...

Zithers posted...

bobbaaay posted...

This is so dumb. I don't even like MCU movies, or action movies really for that matter -- but I think he sounds like an absolute wiener. I like films all across the gamut of cinema -- from high art, avant-garde films to the sleaziest exploitation and zero budget SOV stuff.

Even if Marvel films may not have a distinct style on the auteurs' part -- to say they're not art or cinema is absurd and totally sounds like a wienery kid with a bowl cut saying "rap isn't real music." Writing a successful film and creating a universe/atmosphere requires some talent and thought. Anyone working on these films has some degree of talent - even if their endgame (pun intended) is money. It's no different than writing an earworm catchy pop song -- sure it's not "high art," but it still takes some talent and knowledge of the medium.

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look. It's also absurd that some people commenting here are suggesting that these popcorn flicks are detrimental to the medium -- as if film patronage is limited or exclusive. If you watch one film it doesn't mean you're incapable of supporting or watching a different film. There are people that literally go to the theater multiple times a week.

I definitely don't like MCU films, just like I could give a shit less about Harry Potter films, or Lord of the Ring films, or Star Wars films, etc. But I'm not going to try and feign some sort of superiority over it or pretend the people involved in making those films didn't have any talent or vision.

it is, and he talks about that in the piece. did you even read it?

i also don't get why everyone brings up star wars, harry potter, etc. he isn't saying the movies aren't cinema because they are expensive or about superheroes. its because they are focus tested to death and lack a unifying vision. again - he talks about this in the article. seriously - did anyone actually read it?

I read the quote, and I know what he's saying. I'm not a fucking idiot.
I understand he's saying that they're formulaic and cater to their audiences. That doesn't change anything I'm saying, and it still makes him a wiener.
I still also don't understand how he can suggest that patronage of one film limits patronage of another.

well, for one, disney does block booking which means theaters have to agree to screen x shitty movie on y amount of screens if they want to get big popular guaranteed moneymaking z movie. they can force theaters' hands and essentially not allow them to show arthouse, independent, or foreign films that are 'cinema' as cinephiles define it. scorsese himself was bumped from studios and had to slum it with netflix to make the irishman. studios just aren't interested in smaller movies. they want to play it safe. not really sure what's hard to follow here. especially since if you don't live in a major market or college town you don't have easy theater access to other types of movies.
---

Zithers posted...

sure sounds like a lot of the same fucking thing

'a lot of' is a long way from 'only'
---

I mean - to relate this to horror, since that's my area of film where I'm most knowledgeable - this absolutely hasn't stopped smaller, lesser known horror directors from getting their films greenlighted and having wide releases in major theaters over the last 10 years. This decade alone had Saulnier go from having to fund Blue Ruin through a kickstarter to Green Room being a major release? Or Ari Aster, who Scorsese even mentioned in that quote, rising to wide audience popularity? Or The VVitch and It Follows, the former being a full-length directorial debut and the latter being a sophmore full length, having wide releases and receiving critical acclaim?
Honestly the '10s were a better decade overall for mainstream horror than the '90s or '00s. I don't see the genre hurting whatsoever at the hands of the evil MCU directors and their predatory theater politics.

I can maybe see that being an issue in small towns in the middle of nowhere, where their theaters only have a few screens. Maybe then that's valid. But I just gave plenty of examples of emerging directors that have had mainstream success

Another fine example of late capitalism being a fucking blight on humanity.
---

bobbaaay posted...

I mean - to relate this to horror, since that's my area of film where I'm most knowledgeable - this absolutely hasn't stopped smaller, lesser known horror directors from getting their films greenlighted and having wide releases in major theaters over the last 10 years. This decade alone had Saulnier go from having to fund Blue Ruin through a kickstarter to Green Room being a major release? Or Ari Aster, who Scorsese even mentioned in that quote, rising to wide audience popularity? Or The VVitch and It Follows, the former being a full-length directorial debut and the latter being a sophmore full length, having wide releases and receiving critical acclaim?
Honestly the '10s were a better decade overall for mainstream horror than the '90s or '00s. I don't see the genre hurting whatsoever at the hands of the evil MCU directors and their predatory theater politics.

I can maybe see that being an issue in small towns in the middle of nowhere, where their theaters only have a few screens. Maybe then that's valid. But I just gave plenty of examples of emerging directors that have had mainstream success

jeremy saulnier's latest movie was dumped on netflix. david robert mitchell's latest movie i think spent one week in theaters. robert eggers' newest movie isn't doing well at the box office during its semi wide release...

of course the common link for most of the stuff you just mentioned is a24, who is doing great work. but having one tiny distributor up against the major studios doesn't do a lot of good in the grand scheme of things. like half of their movies are VOD.

but again i don't really care about genre, nor does scorsese. we're talking plain original, visionary filmmaking.
---

lol
---

Am I the only one that thinks both Scorsese movies and Marvel movies are bad

bobbaaay posted...

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look.

If the reaction from Marvel fanboys hadn't been so overblown and accusatory then I imagine he wouldn't have written this piece. In any case, it contains a lot of good analysis so what's the problem?

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/martin-scorsese-avenges-the-auteur

good piece on the scorsese piece
---

Malfunction posted...

bobbaaay posted...

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look.

If the reaction from Marvel fanboys hadn't been so overblown and accusatory then I imagine he wouldn't have written this piece. In any case, it contains a lot of good analysis so what's the problem?

It literally reads as the film version of "rap/pop isn't real music."

bobbaaay posted...

Malfunction posted...

bobbaaay posted...

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look.

If the reaction from Marvel fanboys hadn't been so overblown and accusatory then I imagine he wouldn't have written this piece. In any case, it contains a lot of good analysis so what's the problem?

It literally reads as the film version of "rap/pop isn't real music."

he's saying there's not a unifying artistic vision behind them

not sure how anyone who regularly watches movies can disagree with this tbh
---

Zithers posted...

bobbaaay posted...

Malfunction posted...

bobbaaay posted...

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look.

If the reaction from Marvel fanboys hadn't been so overblown and accusatory then I imagine he wouldn't have written this piece. In any case, it contains a lot of good analysis so what's the problem?

It literally reads as the film version of "rap/pop isn't real music."

he's saying there's not a unifying artistic vision behind them

not sure how anyone who regularly watches movies can disagree with this tbh

I watch enough movies to know that that's some pretentious horseshit.
I've only ever seen one or two MCU movies, and I wasn't a fan -- but art can be made just to make money, and that doesn't take away from the talent that goes into it. I get that you're saying that the directors don't have a unique voice/aesthetic - but so what in this case? If that's not what they're going for then whatever.
I don't think that it's terribly different than pulp romance paperbacks and the like.

bobbaaay posted...

Zithers posted...

bobbaaay posted...

Malfunction posted...

bobbaaay posted...

He's a wiener for making such a big deal about this, and it's not a good look.

If the reaction from Marvel fanboys hadn't been so overblown and accusatory then I imagine he wouldn't have written this piece. In any case, it contains a lot of good analysis so what's the problem?

It literally reads as the film version of "rap/pop isn't real music."

he's saying there's not a unifying artistic vision behind them

not sure how anyone who regularly watches movies can disagree with this tbh

I watch enough movies to know that that's some pretentious horseshit.
I've only ever seen one or two MCU movies, and I wasn't a fan -- but art can be made just to make money, and that doesn't take away from the talent that goes into it. I get that you're saying that the directors don't have a unique voice/aesthetic - but so what in this case? If that's not what they're going for then whatever.
I don't think that it's terribly different than pulp romance paperbacks and the like.

i mean i've seen ten or eleven and they are pretty same-y. v anonymously directed. just not interesting to watch.

the answer to "so what" is that they are making a lot of money and pushing unique visions out of studios and into the indie/arthouse world where even then directors struggle to get anything financed and showcased. and... you know... if you like movies as much as scorsese does or i do, you get resentful. although scorsese is much more gracious about it than i am.
---

How are they pushing unique visions out of studios when we only get 3 of them at most per year? There are hundreds of other movies in theaters every year. They all have a chance to succeed. Marvel movies being popular doesnt mean that people cant make the movies they want to make anymore
---

Feline_Heart posted...

How are they pushing unique visions out of studios when we only get 3 of them at most per year? There are hundreds of other movies in theaters every year. They all have a chance to succeed. Marvel movies being popular doesnt mean that people cant make the movies they want to make anymore

yeah if you read the piece you'd see he was railing against franchise films in general instead of just marvel...

also it *is* harder to make your movie and *is* harder to succeed. studios want to make less movies that make more money and take up more screens for longer periods of time. while also figuring out how to boost their streaming services and win the streaming wars. disney has their dirt cheap service coming soon and they just bought up fox and will likely have sold 50% of tickets this year. they're horrifying. furthermore marketing for a movie needs to be, like, minimum $50m to become a success in wide release. how many personal visions do you think get an advertising budget like that? pretty sure us and once upon a time in hollywood are the only movies to qualify for that this year.

anyway this obviously squeezes out smaller movies because people become conditioned to only wanting to see big lifeleess cgi spectacle (whether it be marvel, f&f, jurassic park, looks like star wars is losing its personality as well, etc). so smaller movies don't make money at the box office and then... well... you're stuck with big movies. it's like capitalism. does trickle down economics work? no. when the rich get richer the smaller folks are crushed.
---

Zithers posted...

Feline_Heart posted...

How are they pushing unique visions out of studios when we only get 3 of them at most per year? There are hundreds of other movies in theaters every year. They all have a chance to succeed. Marvel movies being popular doesnt mean that people cant make the movies they want to make anymore

yeah if you read the piece you'd see he was railing against franchise films in general instead of just marvel...

also it *is* harder to make your movie and *is* harder to succeed. studios want to make less movies that make more money and take up more screens for longer periods of time. while also figuring out how to boost their streaming services and win the streaming wars. disney has their dirt cheap service coming soon and they just bought up fox and will likely have sold 50% of tickets this year. they're horrifying. furthermore marketing for a movie needs to be, like, minimum $50m to become a success in wide release. how many personal visions do you think get an advertising budget like that? pretty sure us and once upon a time in hollywood are the only movies to qualify for that this year.

anyway this obviously squeezes out smaller movies because people become conditioned to only wanting to see big lifeleess cgi spectacle (whether it be marvel, f&f, jurassic park, looks like star wars is losing its personality as well, etc). so smaller movies don't make money at the box office and then... well... you're stuck with big movies. it's like capitalism. does trickle down economics work? no. when the rich get richer the smaller folks are crushed.

Joker had no CGI and was basically an arthouse type picture, made more money based on costs to make it than Infinity War.

But yeah, of course you are right, not the actual stats
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Zithers posted...

Feline_Heart posted...

How are they pushing unique visions out of studios when we only get 3 of them at most per year? There are hundreds of other movies in theaters every year. They all have a chance to succeed. Marvel movies being popular doesnt mean that people cant make the movies they want to make anymore

yeah if you read the piece you'd see he was railing against franchise films in general instead of just marvel...

also it *is* harder to make your movie and *is* harder to succeed. studios want to make less movies that make more money and take up more screens for longer periods of time. while also figuring out how to boost their streaming services and win the streaming wars. disney has their dirt cheap service coming soon and they just bought up fox and will likely have sold 50% of tickets this year. they're horrifying. furthermore marketing for a movie needs to be, like, minimum $50m to become a success in wide release. how many personal visions do you think get an advertising budget like that? pretty sure us and once upon a time in hollywood are the only movies to qualify for that this year.

anyway this obviously squeezes out smaller movies because people become conditioned to only wanting to see big lifeleess cgi spectacle (whether it be marvel, f&f, jurassic park, looks like star wars is losing its personality as well, etc). so smaller movies don't make money at the box office and then... well... you're stuck with big movies. it's like capitalism. does trickle down economics work? no. when the rich get richer the smaller folks are crushed.

Joker had no CGI and was basically an arthouse type picture, made more money based on costs to make it than Infinity War.

But yeah, of course you are right, not the actual stats

serious question: have you ever seen an arthouse movie?

joker also had between a 50-70m budget and probably had the same in advertising. it is also the third iteration of the joker in the past ten years aka "franchise film" and there's already chatter of a sequel (duh). i don't really see how it qualifies. and even if i were to take that as an answer: good job naming *one* outlier. guess nothing is wrong then. keep making boring sequels, spinoffs, and reboots of things over and over and kill off grownup filmmaking unless it is tangientally related to these franchises!
---

This kind of snobbishness deserves a neon sign floating overhead, repeatedly blinking the word WANKER.
---

serious question: have you ever seen an arthouse movie?

This was such a wienery thing to say to that poster, lol.

Not enough people voted in the poll imo
---

I can't believe Martin Scorsese still thinks my dumb children's movies suck three ways 'till Tuesday, I'm going to go wet myself, and then we'll see who is the sissy.

---