Board 8 > Scorsese's op-ed on "Marvel is not cinema" comments

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

This is an absolute must-read. If you don't agree with him after this then you are a hopeless shill.
---

The man's allowed to not like superhero movies, but to sit there and act like they're all the same is blatantly incorrect as well as ignorant on his part.

I agree with a lot of what he says about film franchises all feeling the same, but if anything superhero movies are the ones that are actually starting to break the mold. Movies like Black Panther, Infinity War and Joker are all trying something different playing with different concepts. Hell even stuff like Nolan's Batman trilogy covers plenty of themes and character studies.

Under normal circumstances I'd agree with him, but he's specifically attacking a single genre. I think all romance movies feel the same, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still considered art and some do have really compelling characters and themes.
---

Old person bitter world changed. Move along.

This is just the new age version of people calling fans of comic books childish and stupid.
---

I bet no one read that.
---

pjbasis posted...

I bet no one read that.

I did a skim admittedly
---

pjbasis posted...

I bet no one read that.

I did!

---

It's why I don't enjoy watching Marvel or Star Wars or just Disney in general. They are all designed to be products that will make the company as much money as possible. And those are the points he makes.

It can't really be art if it is conceived in a board room and designed by analysts. That's really what Scorsese is railing against. Not superhero films exclusively.
---

i agree with the gist of what he's saying but i wouldn't say this is an "absolute must-read." he's not saying anything particularly new or interesting. the trend of huge blockbusters having become more and more safe and formulaic over the past number of years has been pointed out plenty of times before.
---

Remember that he did have an active hand in the creation of Joker. He clearly isn't indicting the concept of superheroes as a whole, and his position on the safety of the big budget franchise film is a fair position to hold.
---

"Superhero movies" as an umbrella term encompass a ridiculous variety of themes, concepts and even genres. To wave them all off as one big group seems akin to someone in ye olde times waving off all period films. It's not really a genre, but a container/framework to tell stories in. To miss that makes it seem like Scorsese is just out of touch.

More than anything he just seems upset that theaters are entering retirement age as the be all end all of how movies are distributed. He even acknowledges that The Irishman straight up has no home in an exclusive theater run, and that seems to upset him.

It's understandable given that's all he's ever known, but I think it's important to recognize that the death of independent theaters isn't the death of independent cinema - if anything, there are more roads than ever for these films and these artists. Just because he isn't a fan of these new roads doesn't mean he should take it out on mainstream movies.
---

I read it.

It's a criticism that applies to some superhero movies, just like any other genre, or frankly, budget, of movies. There are a wealth of independent films out there that this very same criticism applies to.

He reads as a guy who had a preconceived notion of what he expects the movies to be, watched one or two that fit into that bubble, and then called it a day and said "vindicated, told ya so, scorse called it, etc"

But there is absolutely more than what he's dumbing it down to in quite a few superhero movies out there. The Dark Knight, Civil War, Infinity War, Joker. There are a lot of them that do more than just be cheap thrills and end up bringing you something unexpected or something to think about or discuss coming out of it that is more than just "wow wasn't that cool!!!"

Not that it's even necessarily a bad thing to be simple entertainment and nothing more-- those aren't my favorite superhero movies or anything, but yeah.
---

I think his thesis here is that Marvel movies aren't "cinema" because there are no emotional stakes in them. You already know exactly what is supposed to happen. You will never unearth a filmmaker's "vision" because these movies are thoroughly tested through market research first. In short, you'll never find a Marvel move that takes a risk, because that is naturally antithetical to how they're all made.
---

I mean there are like 16 Marvel movies alone. If 5 of them break the mold + 2 good Batman movies I'd say he's still right.
---

he really hit the nail on the head talking about risk and the vision of an individual artist
---

Let me pose a question to the topic then: is there a single blockbuster comic book movie post-TDK trilogy that is not vetted through audience testing? Is there a single one that is controlled by an auteur who is making all final creative decisions, research and studio be damned?

To Scorsese, this is the opposite of his definition of cinema.
---

I would strongly disagree with the idea that audience testing or involving more people somehow removes all "cinema cred" that a film has. Like Pop Art is a thing. "Art" isn't exclusively something that cuts against society's expectations. (Though some of the best art often does, I'd say it's far from a requirement.)

Enter the Spiderverse has been hailed over and over again for its breakthrough art style and animation, and that movie had such a ridiculous number of people's hands on it that they needed to create an all new workflow just to account for them all. Is that film somehow not a "real" work of art because it came from a swarm of people rather than a lone auteur?
---

Depending on your definition of what "vetted" is you can apply that thinking to a lot lot lot more than Marvel stuff. Basically any movie that has some theme that has already been done has some amount of market research-- that's just a consequence of a glut of movies to view that's ever expanding, and a society that's becoming more and more connected-- it has nothing to do with the movies playing it safe and everything to do with the definition of what safe is expanding at a rapid rate.

Also, keeping it to Marvel Blockbusters, I feel like Infinity War was a risk for sure to name the most simple one. Children were literally crying at the end of that movie in my theater and that's not a unique story-- I'm rather surprised it didn't really get any backlash for that. You can say there's no risk because it's adapting existing material-- but the movies don't follow the comics exactly either (and the audience by and large hasn't read the source material anyway)
---

the original guardians of the galaxy was definitely a risk. it's basically a blockbuster version of a troma movie about a superhero team nobody gave a shit about.

it's possible that scorsese hasn't seen it, given that he's only tried "a few" MCU movies.
---

Lopen posted...

Depending on your definition of what "vetted" is you can apply that thinking to a lot lot lot more than Marvel stuff. Basically any movie that has some theme that has already been done has some amount of market research-- that's just a consequence of a glut of movies to view that's ever expanding, and a society that's becoming more and more connected-- it has nothing to do with the movies playing it safe and everything to do with the definition of what safe is expanding at a rapid rate.

Also, keeping it to Marvel Blockbusters, I feel like Infinity War was a risk for sure to name the most simple one. Children were literally crying at the end of that movie in my theater and that's not a unique story-- I'm rather surprised it didn't really get any backlash for that. You can say there's no risk because it's adapting existing material-- but the movies don't follow the comics exactly either (and the audience by and large hasn't read the source material anyway)

You're a fool if you don't think that kind of emotional manipulation was market research-based. There's a reason why it brought them billions of dollars.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

the original guardians of the galaxy was definitely a risk. it's basically a blockbuster version of a troma movie about a superhero team nobody gave a shit about.

it's possible that scorsese hasn't seen it, given that he's only tried "a few" MCU movies.

Guardians 1 is probably the only MCU movie I would make the case for as cinema
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

There's a reason why it brought them billions of dollars.

Are you arguing that ending the movie in a slightly less risky point would have held those billions from it? lol.
---

I wonder how hed feel about the DCEU movies most of which arent very good at all

scarletspeed7 posted...

Remember that he did have an active hand in the creation of Joker. He clearly isn't indicting the concept of superheroes as a whole, and his position on the safety of the big budget franchise film is a fair position to hold.

Right, he's referring more to MCU. There's much less to risk artistically when you have a massive built-in audience (not that the studio would let anyone take major artistic risks on those types of films). I think he's dead on.

---

Who was it that said today's superhero movies are just getting the same vitriol as yesterday's mobster movies, and westerns before that, and so on?

Because that's basically it.

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I think his thesis here is that Marvel movies aren't "cinema" because there are no emotional stakes in them.

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Let me pose a question to the topic then: is there a single blockbuster comic book movie post-TDK trilogy that is not vetted through audience testing? Is there a single one that is controlled by an auteur who is making all final creative decisions, research and studio be damned?

These are two pretty different critiques that are being conflated here.

From a creator POV, it's true that Marvel blockbusters are made by committee based on existing source material, and will never represent a single individual's burning creative vision.

But from an audience POV, it doesn't mean the movies have "no emotional stakes." Or to quote from the article:

[Cinema] was about characters the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.

You don't need a single creative vision to accomplish that. It's basically a non sequitur. You could have an auteur who wants to make a sweet thrill ride of a movie, or you could have a committee who jointly decides to create something character-centric and emotionally meaningful.
---

Ferroseed posted...

Who was it that said today's superhero movies are just getting the same vitriol as yesterday's mobster movies, and westerns before that, and so on?

Because that's basically it.

Those older movies received vitriol from whom? Elite film critics? The original Caheirs du Cinema crowd loved American crime films and westerns.

Is there a single one that is controlled by an auteur who is making all final creative decisions, research and studio be damned?

To be fair, the original directors that were considered auteurs were the ones whose vision shined through the studio system. I think the issue is more that "auteurist" directors just aren't the ones making the top Hollywood movies like in years past. I mean, how many big franchise films post-Nolan have been directed by someone considered an auteur? Black Panther and The Last Jedi? I guess The Hobbit movies count as well.


---

Like are you trying to argue that nothing that's a sequel to well received movie can be cinema? Because that sounds a lot like what's being argued.

Is Terminator 2 not Cinema due to the success of the first one?
How about The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi?
How about The Two Towers or Return of the King?
Is Logan not cinema because of the X-Men franchise?

Does every movie out there have to be completely unique, devoid of any existing material to work off of, or be disqualified? Can we expand this to actors? There is a certain brand name value that an actor brings that mitigates risks. Is Forrest Gump not cinema because Tom Hanks is in it?
---

Lopen posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

There's a reason why it brought them billions of dollars.

Are you arguing that ending the movie in a slightly less risky point would have held those billions from it? lol.

I think it was very clinically manufactured in order to sell tickets to Endgame, rather than an artistic decision. I'm not saying that a different ending would have been better (sometimes financial and artistic decisions can be the same), but the reasoning was definitely shallow.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I think it was very clinically manufactured in order to sell tickets to Endgame, rather than an artistic decision.

I think there are a lot less risky ways to do that that don't tank Endgame's ticket sales in the least. You basically got all the legwork you needed for hyping tickets when you spent a dozen movies worth of hype building to that one moment and put "Part 2" on it. For as many people that get a bit more hyped, there are angry parents that don't want to take their kids to Endgame. If it was truly about being safe, cutting a bit before the big battle would have been much easier.
---

Lopen posted...

I think there are a lot less risky ways to do that that don't tank Endgame's ticket sales in the least. You basically got all the legwork you needed for hyping tickets when you spent a dozen movies worth of hype building to that one moment and put "Part 2" on it. For as many people that get a bit more hyped, there are angry parents that don't want to take their kids to Endgame. If it was truly about being safe, cutting a bit before the big battle would have been much easier.

Are you literally arguing against the business strategy for the most successful movie of all time? lol
---

Are you literally arguing that the entirety of why it made so damn much was because of that one decision? lol
---

I just dont get why he specified the MCU. Even if were just talking Disney's franchises here they've done way more damage with their live action remakes and the Star Wars franchise. The of those three the MCU has been the most consistently good and unique.
---

Lopen posted...

Are you literally arguing that the entirety of why it made so damn much was because of that one decision? lol

I think that they spent 8 figures on market research and audience testing. And the decision on this ending was made based on that, not based on artistic vision.
---

Leafeon13N posted...

Old person bitter world changed. Move along.

Yeah pretty much. I feel like the punchline in his op-ed was when he revealed his true feelings. His new movie isnt the big deal he wants it to be. He made a point to say its a Netflix thing. And hes just taking out his jealousy on something popular that he doesnt like.

---

BetrayedTangy posted...

I just dont get why he specified the MCU. Even if were just talking Disney's franchises here they've done way more damage with their live action remakes and the Star Wars franchise. The of those three the MCU has been the most consistently good and unique.

They've done great with Star Wars.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Lopen posted...

Are you literally arguing that the entirety of why it made so damn much was because of that one decision? lol

I think that they spent 8 figures on market research and audience testing. And the decision on this ending was made based on that, not based on artistic vision.

Actually didn't the Russo brothers directly state they were going to put it at the beginning of Endgame initially, but thought it worked better to make Infinity War a contained movie by putting it at the end. If anything that's the exact opposite of what you're saying
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I think that they spent 8 figures on market research and audience testing. And the decision on this ending was made based on that, not based on artistic vision.

And I disagree, and you can't really prove me wrong on that much, given that part 1 made a pretty good percentage of what part 2 did and part 2 was going to get a boost just by being "part 2" assuming any sort of cliffhanger.

Did part 1 end in the "right" place? Yes
Did part 1 end in a place that by some definition could be considered risky? Yes.
Can you prove that part 2 makes less by ending part 1 in any other place? No.

At this point you're basically just saying it can't be artistic vision because it was made as a big budget movie that wants to be profitable. Nice circular logic there.
---

Gatarix posted...

You don't need a single creative vision to accomplish that. It's basically a non sequitur. You could have an auteur who wants to make a sweet thrill ride of a movie, or you could have a committee who jointly decides to create something character-centric and emotionally meaningful.

So much this. Not to downplay the talent of auteurs but plenty of great art across many media are made "by committee" aka multiple collaborators. Film is also an inherently collaborative medium because you generally need other people to bring a director's vision to life. What's more, while the criticism of the movies being too similar may hold true for most of the "house style" Marvel movies, the best of them (Ragnarok, Guardians, Cap 2, Avengers 1) do have that touch of individual creativity to them anyways. So I'm really unconvinced by this argument.

That said, I do appreciate his additional perspective that's more interesting to hear than the clickbait headlines originally. And while I don't care too much for the "high art" distinction, I think the heart of his complaint - that blockbuster superhero movies and movies similar to them are crowding out other genres and styles of movie making - is very true and worth complaining about. Especially with Disney doing things like restricting access to back catalogs to monopolies the film industry, which hurts indie theaters, I think this is an entirely valid complaint. But it still comes across to me as one of genre, tone, and accessibility than one of artistic merit.

---

SaveEstelle posted...

BetrayedTangy posted...

I just dont get why he specified the MCU. Even if were just talking Disney's franchises here they've done way more damage with their live action remakes and the Star Wars franchise. The of those three the MCU has been the most consistently good and unique.

They've done great with Star Wars.

Eh the movies themselves are fine I guess. My main issue is that they have this huge universe to explore and create unique stories with. Yet every single movie that's been released since the revival has been heavily reliant on past characters and stories. Hell even their Disney+ shows have been too. I think their trying to hard to cater to nostalgia when they could just as easily create something new and fresh in the universe.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

If you don't agree with him after this then you are a hopeless shill.

oddly enough this is exactly what a shill would say
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

So much this. Not to downplay the talent of auteurs but plenty of great art across many media are made "by committee" aka multiple collaborators. Film is also an inherently collaborative medium because you generally need other people to bring a director's vision to life. What's more, while the criticism of the movies being too similar may hold true for most of the "house style" Marvel movies, the best of them (Ragnarok, Guardians, Cap 2, Avengers 1) do have that touch of individual creativity to them anyways. So I'm really unconvinced by this argument.

Scorsese's not arguing that these movies by committee can't be entertaining or make people feel a certain way or be well-made. He's saying that he has a very specific definition of "cinema." To him, cinema is a movie that projects a visionary's feelings onto screen in a way that only motion pictures can accomplish. And I don't think that any MCU movie, save Guardians 1, was made by a person or group of people who were like "we need to use this medium to express a certain part of my soul."

Not every movie needs to do that, sure. But "cinema" in Scorsesean lexicon does.
---

There's a difference between design by a creative committee of filmmakers/production staff and design by marketing/finance execs
---

I mean if Scorsese gets to define the terms of course he's going to win the argument

that's how it works
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Scorsese's not arguing that these movies by committee can't be entertaining or make people feel a certain way or be well-made. He's saying that he has a very specific definition of "cinema." To him, cinema is a movie that projects a visionary's feelings onto screen in a way that only motion pictures can accomplish. And I don't think that any MCU movie, save Guardians 1, was made by a person or group of people who were like "we need to use this medium to express a certain part of my soul."

Not every movie needs to do that, sure. But "cinema" in Scorsesean lexicon does.

Or in other words we'll arbitrarily reduce the number of movies that fall into the "cinema" umbrella to win arguments until the word loses any sort of meaning that anyone should give a crap about to begin with

Was it worth it. What did it cost you?
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

What's more, while the criticism of the movies being too similar may hold true for most of the "house style" Marvel movies, the best of them (Ragnarok, Guardians, Cap 2, Avengers 1) do have that touch of individual creativity to them anyways. So I'm really unconvinced by this argument.

oh yeah, ragnarok is pretty auteur-ish with its flight of the conchords style humor. i don't think it did that style particularly well but that's beside the point.

it's not that risky - it's thor so everyone was going to see it anyway - but it's not a paint-by-numbers studio movie either.
---

Lopen posted...

Or in other words we'll arbitrarily reduce the number of movies that fall into the "cinema" umbrella to win arguments until the word loses any sort of meaning that anyone should give a crap about to begin with

Was it worth it. What did it cost you?

It's an important distinction to make. It sort of reminds me of people who watch shows like Two and a Half Men and don't realize they are being manipulated by the laugh track. Maybe one day MCU fans will grow up and realize how hollow these films are and will watch something truly great like Parasite!
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Scorsese's not arguing that these movies by committee can't be entertaining or make people feel a certain way or be well-made. He's saying that he has a very specific definition of "cinema." To him, cinema is a movie that projects a visionary's feelings onto screen in a way that only motion pictures can accomplish. And I don't think that any MCU movie, save Guardians 1, was made by a person or group of people who were like "we need to use this medium to express a certain part of my soul."

Not every movie needs to do that, sure. But "cinema" in Scorsesean lexicon does.

Sure, but again that sounds more to me like he is lamenting the loss of a style of filmmaking. Which he is free to do, and I see where he's coming from, but to most people "cinema" is synonymous with "movie" or maybe "art film." Obviously Scorsese is not most people and that's where the conversation completely breaks down.

---

Two and a Half Men is more like Jurassic Park Forgotten Kingdom. A movie devoid of any merit that stands entirely on its big budget.

Marvel Movies are actually good comedies with a laugh track, which do exist.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

It sort of reminds me of people who watch shows like Two and a Half Men and don't realize they are being manipulated by the laugh track.

Wait, are you saying Two and Half Men doesn't meet your definition of "cinema"? It is totally art and deserves as much respect as any great film you can think of. In fact, it probably deserves more respect when you consider how much money it made.
---