Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

Can't say that I blame him.

If even Scorsese is having trouble getting funded for projects what hope do less-established people have.

https://www.cnet.com/news/the-irishman-martin-scorsese-netflix-press-conference/

"Theaters have become amusement parks," he said. "It's not cinema, it's something else."

Saruwatari

Is this really worth a thread? What left is there to discuss about a throwaway remark taken hugely out of context and blown massively out of proportion?

well there's more

“Theaters have become amusement parks. That is all fine and good but don’t invade everything else in that sense. That is fine and good for those who enjoy that type of film and, by the way, knowing what goes into them now, I admire what they do. It’s not my kind of thing, it simply is not. It’s creating another kind of audience that thinks cinema is that.”

I think that it's more deserving of discussion than some of the shyte movies that have threads here

Also it's part of a broader discussion, not just what Scorsese has said. If you take Marvel and add in maybe the Star Wars franchise you have a huge amount of budget taken and also key slots in the release calendar.

It affects every sort of project along the chain from small-budget to medium to large.

Also as Scorsese says, many people (that audience) now think that that is cinema - which is sad. That's a new dimension to the discussion imo

Ardent

I think ageism is a factor in all of this also. Plus the fact De Niro has been phoning it in for decades and putting his name to complete rubbish at times.

I doubt Tarantino had similar problems raising funding to shoot Di Caprio, Pitt and Robbie recently.

bucketybuck

glasso wrote: »

Also as Scorsese says, many people (that audience) now think that that is cinema - which is sad. That's a new dimension to the discussion imo

Loud, big budget movies like Star wars and Marvell are cinema, because with the rise of top quality home entertainment systems the only reason to ever put yourself through the misery of a cinema visit is for the biggest and loudest films. I'm certainly not going there for a thriller that will work just as well on my own TV.

Ardent

Ardent wrote: »

I think ageism is a factor in all of this also. Plus the fact De Niro has been phoning it in for decades and putting his name to complete rubbish at times.

I doubt Tarantino had similar problems raising funding to shoot Di Caprio, Pitt and Robbie recently.

you do have a point but De Niro doesn't phone it in with Scorsese stuff and this movie is back in the realm of what Scorsese does best, not missionaries in Japan :pac:

Scorsese is 76 but Eastwood is 89!

Sleeper12

He's wrong. It most definitely is cinema. It's different to his cinema but cinema it is.

I like most of his work but I also like most Marvel movies. Marvel movies are far better on the big screen where in happy to see his movies on TV at home. So in a way marvel, Star wars etc are ac more cinema than his own movies imo

Agent Coulson

I love Scorsese and I also love $200m summer popcorn sh1t blockbusters by Michael Bay and they are both cinema to me as they both deserve to be seen on giant cinema screens.

It is a simplest view on cinema but a true one.

Sleeper12

glasso wrote:

It affects every sort of project along the chain from small-budget to medium to large.

Music bios might be the next big thing. Rocket man & The Freddie movie (spellchecker won't help me use the movie name) were box office hits for a reasonable budget with the added bonus of a top selling soundtrack

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

I love Scorsese and I also love $200m summer popcorn sh1t blockbusters by Michael Bay and they are both cinema to me as they both deserve to be seen on giant cinema screens.

It is a simplest view on cinema but a true one.

I don't mind blockbusters but it's the "franchise" blockbusters (Marvel, Star Wars etc) that have multiple movies out each year that are the issue and what Scorsese is getting at.

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Loud, big budget movies like Star wars and Marvell are cinema, because with the rise of top quality home entertainment systems the only reason to ever put yourself through the misery of a cinema visit is for the biggest and loudest films. I'm certainly not going there for a thriller that will work just as well on my own TV.

Don't be surprised if quality thrillers with a decent budget are not really being made anymore then!

Movies need cinema revenue...

Ironicname

Sleeper12 wrote:

He's wrong. It most definitely is cinema. It's different to his cinema but cinema it is.

I kind of agree but I get where he is coming from.

mikhail

This reminds me of something Neil Gaiman wrote about meeting a writer at some prestigious event who was surprised not to have heard of him until she learned he was a popular author, someone whose books actually sold in volume even if he's never going to win a major literary award. He seemed at peace with the distinction, if a little baffled at the attitude he gets from people like her.

It's not as extreme a situation, as Scorsese has commercial considerations to contend with too, but it's the same kind of attitude. I think it's resentment and jealousy that their own work's qualities aren't as financially rewarded. It comes across as petty gatekeeping to me. I'm sure he can cry himself to sleep on his pile of money, hugging his sympathy Oscar for his 150 minute remake of a 90 minute movie.

Ifevera wiztherewas

Good on him.

bucketybuck

glasso wrote: »

Don't be surprised if quality thrillers with a decent budget are not really being made anymore then!

Movies need cinema revenue...

And newspapers needed print revenue, just as music artists needed people to buy albums.

Times have changed and the business model of the movie industry would be best served recognising that fact and adapting.

mikhail

mikhail wrote: »

This reminds me of something Neil Gaiman wrote about meeting a writer at some prestigious event who was surprised not to have heard of him until she learned he was a popular author, someone whose books actually sold in volume even if he's never going to win a major literary award. He seemed at peace with the distinction, if a little baffled at the attitude he gets from people like her.

It's not as extreme a situation, as Scorsese has commercial considerations to contend with too, but it's the same kind of attitude. I think it's resentment and jealousy that their own work's qualities aren't as financially rewarded. It comes across as petty gatekeeping to me. I'm sure he can cry himself to sleep on his pile of money, hugging his sympathy Oscar for his 150 minute remake of a 90 minute movie.

that comparison is not valid at all imo. that's about snobbery but it doesn't mean that alternative books are not written vs movies not being made.

movies need budgets and altho there are alternative funding sources now e.g. Netflix funding it's not directly comparable to the traditional methods.

e.g. I gave the example of mid and big-budget thrillers - there is a definite decline in these sorts of movies - the likes of die-hard (1,2), cliffhanger etc in the past due to the franchise movie effect

yes business models are changing and the world is ever thus but the effect is undeniable

Dades

He's right, but only insofar as he's decided on his own definition of the term "cinema".

Most people have a broader definition that includes mega-franchises and indies alike, so aren't going to agree.

We can all see what he's getting at, just people don't want to be told the stuff they love to see in (and is best seen in) a cinema, is not cinema.

rob316

He's pissed as he couldn't get financial backing for The Irishman from a traditional studio and had to go to Netflix instead.
While I understand his point, taking aim over the Irishman isn't the best example.
I'm extremely excited for this movie, but you can understand there isn't a universal appeal that would have studios throwing money at them, to De Niro who is 76 and hasn't done a decent movie since Jackie Brown in 97, Joe Pesci who has given up on acting since the 90s and Pacino who is almost 80 again hasn't done a decent movie since the 90s.

timmyntc

People are entitled to like what they like, to determine what they think is 'cinema'.

buuuut, I agree with Scorsese in that there is something a bit soulless and design-by-committee about some of the bigger movie franchises we're seeing nowadays. Targeting certain age ratings to get the broadest audience (everything must be PG-13), making sure not to include any controversial content or anything that might hurt certain markets (China). Even watching the movies they feel a bit formulaic.

I suppose it's the same sorta stuff people have been complaining about re: the music industry for years now - mass produced, popular artists don't make *real* music.

johnny_ultimate

I think his expanded comments offer more clarity and nuance than the 'not cinema' headline grabbing quote. He has a point, even if one would word it differently.

I tend to be a bit saddened by any suggestions that the big spectacle movies are the only ones worth going to see in the cinema these days. I'd say the opposite (albeit with the necessary disclaimer that not everyone's lucky enough to have access to good cinemas that draw respectful audiences) - with definite exceptions, a lot of the blockbusters are shallow and televisual experiences that only boast flashiness and loudness as their 'theatrical' benefits. In storytelling and narrative terms you're not missing much by watching them at home. Whereas watching The Irishman in the cinema last night, I found it was the sort of film that would suffer at home - when you're in a cinema, you're more committed to appreciating such a big, complex film's ebbs and flows. Or watching Knives Out in the cinema the other day - very much a small-scale movie by modern Hollywood standards, but is an absolute riot with a game crowd. And honestly, the films I feel most obliged to see in the cinema are slow, low-key and/or challenging films: they're the ones I need to wholly immerse myself in, and a dark room and a big screen is still ideal for that IMO (I don’t have the space at home for the sort of home theatre setup that would replicate that).

I also don't think Marty is entirely driven by ego or jealousy. He's actually dedicated a lot of time and resources going to bat for other films than his own, perhaps more so than any other major living filmmaker. Whether that's his World Cinema Foundation doing vital work in restoring neglected international classics or lending his support to ensure talented up-and-coming filmmakers can make that next crucial step (most recently The Souvenir and Uncut Gems), the man has a peerless record for supporting cinema in various forms. So not just him struggling to get the money for The Irishman, I reckon his frustration is at least equally influenced by the narrowing screen space available for the broader spectrum of cinema.

Greyfox

Scorsese just needs to shut his mouth. Just because your a brilliant film director it doesnt give you the right to say what cinema is. Its a little insulting to all the hard work Marvel have done.

ErnestBorgnine

"Scorsese needs to shut his mouth"

ffs :pac:

Marty is just annoyed like myself that film has declined extremely rapidly in the last 10-15 years and we have a splurge of the most turgid repetitive films that have slowly destroyed cinema and in the next 10-20 years will finish off the art form of film in popular culture. When all films are made for kids, and people who only require kids level films it becomes an amusement park. I would happily hang out in an amusement park every day when I was 15. Once a year is enough as an adult.
We will be left with a massive gap between tentpole garbage and artistic films from independent film makers that will make no money, but after they get some recognition directors will jump to the big paychecks. Justifiers of the kiddy films will laud these great directors directing spiderman 100 and what they can bring to the table in their green studio.

Popcorn movies, and movies you just want to switch off to is now what movies in the cinema are. Its not the odd time going to see one of those, that is what is it now. I used to go to the cinema once every two weeks at least. Everything was released there, now anything unless written in binary code for children gets limited release. In one country in Asia last year in a Multiplex of 16 screens they had only 2 films playing in all screens all day both about superheroes. Nothing else that was out at the time was deemed money making enough.

Perhaps I exaggerate, but this is the direction we are going in, I've been saying it here for 10 years probably and each year it gets worse and worse. Thank God for TV and its incredible upsurge thanks to streaming. There is not enough time to watch all the brilliance across all the platforms, unless one was to sit on the couch all day.

Cinema has been dying slowly but surely for over a decade maybe 2 decades. The Oscars are a complete shambles. The industry is political, and crooked to the core, the level of fakery is mind boggling. The golden years of the art form are behind us. It doesn't mean there won't always be some great films made by great filmmakers, and there will be always a way to appreciate the art, but in popular culture films will soon be written by computers, where the algorithm of profitability can't be affected by artistic human thinking.

Greyfox

Deleted User wrote: »

Marty is just annoyed like myself that film has declined extremely rapidly in the last 10-15 years and we have a splurge of the most turgid repetitive films that have slowly destroyed cinema and in the next 10-20 years will finish off the art form of film in popular culture.

Yeah but the fact is films like Black Panther and Infinity war belong to Cinema just as much as Goodfellas which is why I think Marty should of kept his mouth shut or at least worded what he wanted to say better. It's disrespectful to the hard work the Marvel directors put in. Once again the Marvel films are not just films for kids.

The White Wolf

I don't see the big deal in what he said because he's just articulating what the likes of the Academy are too terrified to admit.

There's always been a clear disdain in the industry towards the kind of film Marvel makes, only now Marvel have revolutionised the genre and even the entire industry to the point all studios are hyper focused on finding sustainable franchises. I can imagine how that frustrates the likes of Scorcese when he's forced to go hat in hand to Netflix, another scourge of the elite.

Greyfox

The White Wolf wrote: »

I don't see the big deal in what he said because he's just articulating what the likes of the Academy are too terrified to admit.

And that's something I hate about the film industry. The people who choose the best film Oscar look down on fantasy/science fiction/super hero films which is pure snobbery on their part

The White Wolf

Greyfox wrote: »

And that's something I hate about the film industry. The people who choose the best film Oscar look down on fantasy/science fiction/super hero films which is pure snobbery on their part

Absolutely. I'd still maintain that Ledger was the best in the category in that year but at the same time I accept he only won because he died. They would have given it to Hoffman or Shannon otherwise.

I'd say they give the likes of Black Panther a best picture nom with a grudging acknowledgement.

johnny_ultimate

Let's not paint Marvel as some sort of populist underdog fighting against the 'elite' now :pac: They're owned by the largest entertainment company in the world, dominate multiplexes, have legions of loyal fans, have a war chest of popular and recognisable characters, routinely make films that top the yearly box office, and just released the most financially successful film of all time. They are very much the definition of the 'elite'.

The filmmakers behind the MCU I'm sure are rightly proud of the films they've made, but I think Marvel can take a wee bit of light criticism from Martin Scorsese at the same time :P

Greyfox

Greyfox wrote: »

Yeah but the fact is films like Black Panther and Infinity war belong to Cinema just as much as Goodfellas which is why I think Marty should of kept his mouth shut or at least worded what he wanted to say better. It's disrespectful to the hard work the Marvel directors put in. Once again the Marvel films are not just films for kids.

There is of course a place in cinema for marvel blockbusters, but this is not the same as taking over the whole industry which is what is happening, to the detriment of the art form, and its led to the amusement park metaphor.

Its an interesting point that there is hard work put in to make all of these things happen, but its when the sheer force of ruthless capitalism starts squeezing the life out of art it becomes very hard to have a shred of respect for it. I find it very hard not to sneer at what's going on.

There is debate to be had, because capitalism is and has always been present in music and film, but it feels like it started first in music that its squeezed the art more and more whereby it becomes extremely limited in popular culture, like its a homogenous product like milk on a supermarket shelf. I think film has followed suit, and theres certainly an elite group of very clever business people that have manipulated both markets in such a way that they are where they are now, and they make mind boggling amounts of money. In music its more obvious with say Simon Cowell. A man I both hate for what he has done to popular music but also respect his business brilliance in what he has done for himself.

SEPT 23 1989

Martin probably wouldn’t get a start in the business today

s7ryf3925pivug

Communal experience my hole. The guy in front and to the right of you has a hacking cough that's about to infect you. The group two in front of him are loudly talking total ****. You turn around to glower at the person kicking your back, see it's a little kid just in time and do a weird awkward nod instead.

Or get a nice hdr tv and watch netflix with people you like.

Marvel films are largely overrated sh!t now. At some point people started taking them too seriously. The best ones are the most lighthearted ones. Umbrella Academy and Legion were brilliant on the other hand. Better than any marvel movies.

The White Wolf

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Martin probably wouldn’t get a start in the business today

Bit of hyperbole there to be fair. Art and talent still shines through.

Klonker

Harlan Agreeable Valentine wrote: »

Communal experience my hole. The guy in front and to the right of you has a hacking cough that's about to infect you. The group two in front of him are loudly talking total ****. You turn around to glower at the person kicking your back, see it's a little kid just in time and do a weird awkward nod instead.

Or get a nice hdr tv and watch netflix with people you like.

Marvel films are largely overrated sh!t now. At some point people started taking them too seriously. The best ones are the most lighthearted ones. Umbrella Academy and Legion were brilliant on the other hand. Better than any marvel movies.

Agree with everything you said above.

The only time I go to the cinema now is when I don't want to wait for the dvd release, e.g. Joker, but that's a very rare occurance for me. People coming in late and talking plus the sound isn't even that good a lot of the time, loud doesn't mean good sound. I'd rather watch at home on my couch with the subtitles on and can invite a few friends and get a few snacks if that's what I want to do either.

The majority of the superhero movies are muck, people think they're great because they stick in an after credit scene or a little easter egg, very childish stuff in my opinion.

The White Wolf

Coppola has gone one step further than Scorcese, describing the Marvel films as despicable and accusing the films of having nothing to say.

Bit harsh imo as Marvel have repeatedly pushed the boundaries of the genre without perhaps smashing them.

I feel what Scorcese and Coppola are saying expands far beyond Marvel to be fair, only Marvel provides them a handy label for their ranting.

s7ryf3925pivug

They're up their hole. If you want to learn about Vietnam watch the Ken Burns documentary, not Apocalypse Now.

Nabokov expressed contempt for didactic writing. There is zero requirement for learning for something to qualify as art.

Scorsese's film was so expensive because of special effects used to reverse-age actors. When Scorsese does it, it's just an extension of makeup, not a theme park or a gimmick.

Raging Bull was **** and was primarily interesting because of the gimmick of Di Niro piling weight on.

Still think most of the marvel films are **** though.

ErnestBorgnine

Harlan Agreeable Valentine wrote: »

They're up their hole. If you want to learn about Vietnam watch the Ken Burns documentary, not Apocalypse Now.

Nabokov expressed contempt for didactic writing. There is zero requirement for learning for something to quality as art.

Scorsese's film was so expensive because of special effects used to reverse-age actors. When Scorsese does it, it's just an extension of makeup, not a theme park or a gimmick.

Raging Bull was **** and was primarily interesting because of the gimmick of Di Niro piling weight on.

Still think most of the marvel films are **** though.

What in this incoherant rant has got anything to do with anything Coppola or Scorsese have said?

touts

Well I'm sure if Marvel are still making the same movies with the same actors in 40 years they will probably struggle to get money also.

thenightman

There's still decent films on in the likes of the ifi/lighthouse. I haven't been to a Cineworld type place in a year or two I'd say. I check the listings every Friday and never anything that interests me, just the usual combo of Spider-Man, Star Wars, comic book franchise tripe.

Also, you don't get many open mouthed chewers or phone checkers in ifi/lighthouse either compared to my last experience in the point odeon!

Ardent

Harlan Agreeable Valentine wrote: »

They're up their hole. If you want to learn about Vietnam watch the Ken Burns documentary, not Apocalypse Now.

Nabokov expressed contempt for didactic writing. There is zero requirement for learning for something to quality as art.

Scorsese's film was so expensive because of special effects used to reverse-age actors. When Scorsese does it, it's just an extension of makeup, not a theme park or a gimmick.

Raging Bull was **** and was primarily interesting because of the gimmick of Di Niro piling weight on.

Still think most of the marvel films are **** though.

Raging Bull is one of best movies ever made. Agree with you on the last point though.

Sad Professor

Scorsese been saying stuff like this for decades including about films his own friends have made. That doesn't mean these amusement park style films are easy to make or don't have a cultural value. To me MCU films represents a blend of comic books, tv shows and committee style blockbuster filmmaking. Which is an interesting thing in itself but they are not cinema and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that. Such films have been around in some form for a long time but it seems they are finally about gobble up everything. Given his involvement in preservation etc, it's only natural that Scorsese will be defensive of the kind of cinema that has dominated since the end of the silent era and which has obviously meant a lot to him.

Kermit.de.frog

I agree with him that, not just Marvel, but the over abundance of superhero movies has not been good for cinema or film making creativity in general.

There is no "hard work" in anything Marvel does btw creatively. It's the same simple formula deployed every few months. It's boilerplate.

ubald.stone

Absolutely agree with Scorsese!

Dravokivich

I find this arguement a bit odd. If we look at the music industry as an example, the Grammys accept and recognise an incredibly varied range of genres. Critics generally tend to also. Why is there a sense of hallowed ground with film?

Greyfox

Sad Professor wrote: »

they are not cinema and I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that.

Their definitely is something wrong with saying it when it's meant in a derogitory way which Scorsese and Coppola meant. Perhaps if they showed Marval some respect first then we might be more willing to listen to what they have to say.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I agree with him that, not just Marvel, but the over abundance of superhero movies has not been good for cinema or film making creativity in general.

There is no "hard work" in anything Marvel does btw creatively. It's the same simple formula deployed every few months. It's boilerplate.

It has been good for cinema, we've had some fantastic superhero films over the last few years. If you don't like superhero films then your in the minority. A bigger factor with the decline of serious films is the rise of quality in tv shows and more streaming services catching on.

I have a friend who thinks theirs no hard work with Marval films, he very clearly knows absolutely nothing about films. The very witty dialogue Marval are famous for is hard work. Planning a huge story arc is hard work. Fantastic special effects is hard work.

Kermit.de.frog

That's why superhero movies are ignored by the Oscars for example - because they are masterpieces of cinema and film making?

It's because they are the opposite.

It's boilerplate.

Some people like that (mostly the target audience who are teenagers) and good luck to them.

But in my view they are not good for cinema because too much resources and time are diverted in to them.

This goes back to the issue of saturation. There is too many superhero genre movies.

Each to their own but i'd like to see emphasis move away from them.

johnny_ultimate

I give Marvel credit for making like two dozen movies in the past 10 years and none of them even being among the best superhero films.

mikhail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's why superhero movies are ignored by the Oscars for example - because they are masterpieces of cinema and film making?

It's because they are the opposite.

It's boilerplate.

Some people like that (mostly the target audience who are teenagers) and good luck to them.

But in my view they are not good for cinema because too much resources and time are diverted in to them.

This goes back to the issue of saturation. There is too many superhero genre movies.

Each to their own but i'd like to see emphasis move away from them.

sed -i 's/superhero/western/g' :pac:

'Twas always thus and always thus will be.

MaceFace

While maybe there is a point to some of what Scorsese is suggesting, it comes across a little like someone pinning for the age of cinema that is no longer there.

If I pick a recent year at random - 2015 and look at some of the most popular films released that year, we have:
Mad Max Fury Road, The Force Awakens, Inside Out, The Martian, Spectre, Age Of Ultron, Minions, Jurassic World, The Revenant, The Big Short, Hateful 8, Room, Creed, Sicario, Spotlight, Bridge of Spies, Straight Outta Compton, Everest, Foxcatcher. That's a hell of a list.

Comparing that to 1983:
Return of the Jedi, Scarface, Flashdance, Mr Mom, Trading Places, War Games, Risky Business, Never Say Never Again, Christine, The King of Comedy, Blue Thunder, Octopussy, Psycho 2, Superman 3, Cujo, Videodrome, Rumble Fish, Smokey & The Bandit 3, Gorky Park, Porkys 2, Jaws 3, Staying Alive, Silkwood.

While there are plenty more I could list, I wanted to keep to the most popular of the year, and 1983 had it's fair share of rubbish and sequels.

mikhail

MaceFace wrote: »

While maybe there is a point to some of what Scorsese is suggesting, it comes across a little like someone pinning for the age of cinema that is no longer there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkKirBSQnI

Penn

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's why superhero movies are ignored by the Oscars for example - because they are masterpieces of cinema and filmmaking?

It's because they are the opposite.

It's boilerplate.

Some people like that (mostly the target audience who are teenagers) and good luck to them.

But in my view they are not good for cinema because too much resources and time are diverted in to them.

This goes back to the issue of saturation. There is too many superhero genre movies.

Each to their own but i'd like to see emphasis move away from them.

Either way though; they are cinema. Whatever definition people could use to describe what cinema is, that applies to superhero movies just as much as it applies to any other type of movie.

Quality, effect on the industry, cinematography... whatever. It's almost entirely subjective and these complaints more so boil down to "I don't like these movies" rather than "It isn't cinema".

I think part of the issue really is that most people want to go to the cinema now for a show; for a big effects-type movie, because there's so many other ways to watch content now that the types of movies that Scorsese and FFC do, many people would just take more of a "It'll be on Netflix in a few months, I'll watch it then" approach.

I love going to the cinema, whether it's for a big blockbuster film or a smaller film. But I'm less likely to go see those smaller films because I don't think you gain any more from seeing it in the cinema than watching it at home on your own TV. The same can't always be said for big blockbuster movies, as the cinema experience adds to it imo.

But I wouldn't say those smaller movies aren't "cinema" because of it. There's ample place for both, and we need both. We need a wide range of different types and scales of movies.

It's not up to Scorsese or FFC to say what films are or aren't "cinema", regardless of their contributions to the film industry. Opinion on whether movies are good or not are subjective, and fair enough. Opinions on whether they're "cinema" or not simply aren't valid.

Greyfox

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That's why superhero movies are ignored by the Oscars for example - because they are masterpieces of cinema and film making?

It's because they are the opposite.

It's boilerplate.

Some people like that (mostly the target audience who are teenagers) and good luck to them.

But in my view they are not good for cinema because too much resources and time are diverted in to them.

This goes back to the issue of saturation. There is too many superhero genre movies.

Each to their own but i'd like to see emphasis move away from them.

It's because the people who judge the Oscars are film snobs, sw the empire strikes back didn't win the best film Oscar as the Oscars use to look down on sci-fi/fantasy and now they look down on super hero films. At the end of the day most critics and sensible film fans are happy to admit the Marval films are entertaining which is what a film is supposed to be. Theirs a mythology with the Marval films and things with a big mythology like Lord of the rings, game of thrones or Harry Potter will always have a huge fanbase eagerly awaiting the next instalment, it's an exciting time for Marval fans.