Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

Dyr

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Exactly. Marvel films vary from good to not as good as with Bond films, Westerns and other such films.

Some of the greatest films ever made were Westerns, I doubt any Marvel (or Bond) film will ever be referred to in that way

I've only seen a few Marvel films, the first Iron Man, Dr Strange, Venom, one of the Captain Americas

TBH I think only one of those even qualifies as "Good".

The Late Late Show

Bambi wrote: »

Some of the greatest films ever made were Westerns, I doubt any Marvel (or Bond) film will ever be referred to in that way

I've only seen a few Marvel films, the first Iron Man, Dr Strange, Venom, one of the Captain Americas

TBH I think only one of those even qualifies as "Good".

It is true there are many Westerns that are considered among the greatest ever made. Shane, High Noon, The Searchers, etc. regularly feature in lists of greatest films ever made.

Films like Bond and Marvel tend to divide audiences. But films like Iron Man I would call 'modern classics of their genre'. If you Google it, you can see it is very well received. On the other hand, Google 'Venom film' and you find it is not well received by most.

It is clear that there is a massive difference in quality in Marvel and Bond films. Some are excellent, some are quite poor. All will satisfy fans of the genre who are not overly critical but a handful will satisfy all. Iron Man is an example of a film that gains fans outside its target audience.

Foxtrol

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Marty’s NYT piece is superb and captures exactly what he was trying to say with all the nuance that sound bites and headlines don’t allow for.

Well it was again his own fault that the soundbites and headlines were there.

He is entitled to his opinion but it is hard to take someone as being a credible judge when they admit that they've only 'tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me'. If someone made the same strong broad claims here about Superhero movies, or even Scorsese's own movies, and admitted the same they wouldn't be taken seriously.

It is also hard not to see his self-interest in many of his complaints. Whether it is when he talks about studios taking risks, where I'd argue putting blockbuster money into Thor or GOTG was far more risky for a studio at the time than any of his recent movies aside prior to the Irishman, or audience tastes, when he claims 'If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.' He would be justified in the latter complaint if every comic book movie was a success, but we've seen many cookie cutter superhero movie attempts fail miserably at the box office while also non-mainstream R rated efforts be hugely popular.

The whole thing is definitely a more nuanced effort on the subject than his earlier attempts but it still screams of a lack of self-reflection on his part. Like a lot of people, he takes the easier route to blame a faceless entity for his problems than trying to dig deeper on the issues.

pixelburp

The Late Late Show wrote: »

It is true there are many Westerns that are considered among the greatest ever made. Shane, High Noon, The Searchers, etc. regularly feature in lists of greatest films ever made.

Films like Bond and Marvel tend to divide audiences. But films like Iron Man I would call 'modern classics of their genre'. If you Google it, you can see it is very well received. On the other hand, Google 'Venom film' and you find it is not well received by most.

It is clear that there is a massive difference in quality in Marvel and Bond films. Some are excellent, some are quite poor. All will satisfy fans of the genre who are not overly critical but a handful will satisfy all. Iron Man is an example of a film that gains fans outside its target audience.

Importantly though, the Westerns that are generally lauded as classics, or held in high regard, typically are either the true deconstructionist ones - such as Unforgiven - or simply those that took a stale formula and applied a boisterous, anarchic energy to them - such as much of Sergio Leone's work. Old, hokey entertainment like Stagecoach is now (rightly?) seen as of its time, and flat, shallow entertainment. Loved sure, but not quite admired either.

Coincidentally, Logan was very much cut from the cloth of Western movies, but still managed to merge the sensibilities of those rougher, anarchic Westerns with its superhero identity. Compare that with MCU's "Winter Soldier", which itself borrowed iconography (and actors) from another genre, those old 1970s Cold War thrillers, yet it didn't really do anything with them, didn't have anything to say or add beyond "Spying on people is bad" - and of course the admittedly brilliant HYDRA twist.

That's where I believe the MCU sometimes falls a little short: it often borrows the superficial elements of genres, tropes or themes, but never explores, subverts or tries to deconstruct those themes. I know I know, there's nothing wrong with shallow entertainment and I'm not saying the MCU is bad because they don't, but the fact that across 23 films there has been no attempt to do this, it feels disappointing.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

He is entitled to his opinion but it is hard to take someone as being a credible judge when they admit that they've only 'tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me'.

Nah it's not, it's very easy to take him as a credible judge.

Also interesting to note that you always look to discredit him rather than refute what he has to say. Quite telling really.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Nah it's not, it's very easy to take him as a credible judge.

So you'd take someone as a credible judge of Scorsese's movies if they said that he is a terrible director while admitting that they only tried to watch a few of his movies?

Also interesting to note that you always look to discredit him rather than refute what he has to say. Quite telling really.

It is 'quite telling' that I clearly refuted two of Scorsese's key points in my post, however rather than trying to counter these you selectively deleted them when you responded...

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you'd take someone as a credible judge of Scorsese's movies if they said that he is a terrible director while admitting that they only tried to watch a few of his movies?

If all Scorsese's movie's were as indisputedly formulaic as Marvel's output i would yeah.

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is 'quite telling' that I clearly refuted two of Scorsese's key points in my post, however rather than trying to counter these you selectively deleted them when you responded...

Clearly refuted

The first one was an attempt to discredit the speaker, the second one is blatant false logic.

From the 30s to the 60s the vast amount of westerns, among other things, contributed to the vast demand for them. There were many unsuccessful westerns in this period, it in no way refutes the argument that the vast exposure to them created more demand.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

If all Scorsese's movie's were as indisputedly formulaic as Marvel's output i would yeah.

Many would actually dispute that and it is exactly why only trying to watch a few of them takes away most of his credibility.

Clearly refuted

Well maybe more accurately I clearly made an effort to refute his complaints, which you originally ignored in your response in lieu of a 'smart' comment You also continue to ignore my other point regarding his claims about studio risk.

The first one was an attempt to discredit the speaker, the second one is blatant false logic.

From the 30s to the 60s the vast amount of westerns, among other things, contributed to the vast demand for them. There were many unsuccessful westerns in this period, it in no way refutes the argument that the vast exposure to them created more demand.

So Westerns also aren't cinema then?

How many Marvel movies are out right now? How many are released this year and next compared to all other movies?

The audience aren't being 'sold one type of thing', like he complains, they're sold many types of things year round but buy much more the few times a year when Marvel is on the shelves. We see in this thread alone how people like to talk the talk about wanting other types of movies but then don't bother to go to the cinema when they are out, instead waiting until they can stream them at home. It is of course easier, and wiser for someone releasing a movie, to complain about the big boogeyman that many dislike than challenge the audience themselves for their own viewing choices.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

Many would actually dispute that and it is exactly why only trying to watch a few of them takes away most of his credibility.

He didn't 'only try', he saw enough of them to see the clear unmistakable pattern.

I'll take Marty's credibility over butthurt fanboys everytime.

Foxtrol wrote: »

So Westerns also aren't cinema then?

Haha, what a leap!

I believe you're the only person to make this statement, what do you think?

Foxtrol wrote: »

We see in this thread alone how people like to talk the talk about wanting other types of movies but then don't bother to go to the cinema when they are out, instead waiting until they can stream them at home. .

Was it not the Marvel fans on this thread saying they stayed at home those films are not suited to the big screen as the 'spectacle' movies?

Maybe i'm wrong on that one.

Marty wrote: »

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Absolute, 100% fact.

There is a feel of religious zealotry in the defense of the superhero stuff here. A kind of vested interest, that feels very corporate.

One of the best directors in history can't get a film made with the leading film studios, with a number of the best actors in the history of film. Its a sad state of affairs. Its not even worrying anymore, I was worried a few years ago. Its happened now and that is the lie of the land.

The bottom line is that the art is being taking out of cinema, and it needs to be viewed at home now instead because we dont have the opportunity as before to see it on the big screen. That is sad for some people from a different generation. Instead of assuming its old man shouting at cloud, it might actually be worth reflecting on what's happening, and how the art of filmmaking and realism, connection with audiences, great story writing etc is dying. There was indeed blockbuster movies going back to the 70's. But they were written by writers not by and for robots, that is the difference between todays blockbusters.

Sure great time and money goes into these movies. Plenty of hard work. The art of film is about something else in my eyes.

Greyfox

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Was it not the Marvel fans on this thread saying they stayed at home those films are not suited to the big screen as the 'spectacle' movies?

Marvel fans have said that but the problem is the people who want more original and serious films tend to be staying at home too.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

He didn't 'only try', he saw enough of them to see the clear unmistakable pattern.

Didn't know you sat with him while he watching the movies?

I'll take Marty's credibility over butthurt fanboys everytime.

Ah yes, attack the poster with a condescending comment. Seems to be a go to for many that agrees with Scorsese... 'quite telling really'.

Haha, what a leap!

I believe you're the only person to make this statement, what do you think?

Scorsese's defense of his 'aren't cinema' claims included the audience being 'sold one type of thing' and you likened it to Westerns previously impacting the market. I struggle to see how you can separate the two, either something that does that to the market supports it not being cinema or it doesn't.

Again, your selective quoting of my posts to avoid responding to my argument that that Scorsese's is fundementally wrong in his claim that they are only sold one type of thing say a lot about your actual interest in discussing the content of the op-ed.

Was it not the Marvel fans on this thread saying they stayed at home those films are not suited to the big screen as the 'spectacle' movies?

Maybe i'm wrong on that one.

A poster supporting Scorsese's point of view claimed something along the lines that there were no good movies released in the last few years, all blockbusters, and then went silent when confronted with a list of 'good movies'. Posters that have claimed they want to go to see more other types of movies have come up with a litany of excuses why they don't.

See your comment here is the nub of the problem in this discussion, you see people who disagree with Scorsese as 'Marvel fans' or 'butthurt fanboys'. People can both be fans of Scorsese and Marvel and both feel there are issues with the industry but disagree on the causes. Your condescension or superiority complex doesn't help the discussion at all.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a feel of religious zealotry in the defense of the superhero stuff here. A kind of vested interest, that feels very corporate.

One of the best directors in history can't get a film made with the leading film studios, with a number of the best actors in the history of film. Its a sad state of affairs. Its not even worrying anymore, I was worried a few years ago. Its happened now and that is the lie of the land.

Once again this argument ignores that the film in question that he had difficulty to fund costs as much as the blockbuster and apparently largely relies on CGI that has never been used to this extent (if it works he will largely have to thank the likes of MCU for fine-tuning this tool).

The bottom line is that the art is being taking out of cinema, and it needs to be viewed at home now instead because we dont have the opportunity as before to see it on the big screen. That is sad for some people from a different generation. Instead of assuming its old man shouting at cloud, it might actually be worth reflecting on what's happening, and how the art of filmmaking and realism, connection with audiences, great story writing etc is dying. There was indeed blockbuster movies going back to the 70's. But they were written by writers not by and for robots, that is the difference between todays blockbusters.

Sure great time and money goes into these movies. Plenty of hard work. The art of film is about something else in my eyes.

Same old excuses we see time and again in this thread. 'I'd really like to see these movies in the cinema but I'm not bothered to actually get up off my arse and go see them when they're there... Damn you Marvel, it is all your fault!!!!'

Tony EH

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

"Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."


Preach Marty!

Cheers for the link. It's a good read.

Another important quote that should be highlighted is below:

"So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters."

Homelander

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the best directors in history can't get a film made with the leading film studios, with a number of the best actors in the history of film. Its a sad state of affairs. Its not even worrying anymore, I was worried a few years ago. Its happened now and that is the lie of the land.

This repeatedly gets trotted out without the relevant context.

The correct version is as follows:

One of the best directors in history can't get a monsterously expensive film made with the leading film studios, with a number of excellent actors who are, in 2019, not remotely box office draws to justify a 'marvel' level price tag for a lengthy crime-drama piece.

I say that as a major Scorsese fan, can't wait to see The Irishman, but there's an absurd level of denial in the thread.

Doesn't matter if it's Scorsese, Spielberg, or whomever. $160M for what's considered a niche genre, lacking in box office draw power, is a major, major risk - hence no studio was willing to fund it.

$160M is a collosal sum of money. There are major blockbusters made that struggle to get half that funding, in 'mass market' friendly genres.

It's not a sad state of affairs or the lie of the current land, it's always been the lie of the land.

Can anyone point out a film in the crime genre that had a budget even remotely close to $160M at any point in cinematic history?

Adjusted for inflation, even a major, major film of its time, when both director and cast were at the height of their audience draw, Casino, cost half of The Irishman's budget.

Even Scorsese's own previous films in the genre, like The Departed, had much bigger casts and significantly smaller budgets, so let's not keep playing this "he can't get funding for his movie" card as if he's attempting to make some mid-budget production.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

Didn't know you sat with him while he watching the movies?

I haven't, i've seen most of the Marvels thou and he's spot on in what he says.
Obviously very intelligent.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Ah yes, attack the poster with a condescending comment. Seems to be a go to for many that agrees with Scorsese... 'quite telling really'.

I didn't mention you in that post, that was directed at all the condescending "Old man yelling at clouds", "cranky old man", "he needs to shut his mouth" type of posts about The Great Man™ in this thread.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, your selective quoting of my posts to avoid responding to my argument that that Scorsese's is fundementally wrong in his claim that they are only sold one type of thing say a lot about your actual interest in discussing the content of the op-ed.

Marty namechecked Marvel, as they are the top dogs but really he was talking about all/or most modern franchises made by committee, as he made clear in the NYP article.
Here's the quote:

"They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."

You seem to not have see it in my last post.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Your condescension or superiority complex doesn't help the discussion at all.

You've had a few condescending comments in this thread yourself my friend, as always pots and kettles.

And unless you've never in your life said a band or film is **** then no only do you have a superiority complex of your own but a huge big dollop of hypocrisy to go with it.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a feel of religious zealotry in the defense of the superhero stuff here. A kind of vested interest, that feels very corporate.

It's brand loyalty. You're hurting someone's chosen brand and therefore a defence is needed.

It's a triumph of studio marketing.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Cheers for the link. It's a good read.

Another important quote that should be highlighted is below:

"So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters."

Again, how many superhero movies are currently in theatres and how many will be released this year compared to other movies? Audiences aren't being 'sold one type of thing', they're being offered many things and are choosing superhero movies when they're good.

Pointing the finger at big bad boogeyman Marvel is lazy for the cause of this.

Homelander

It's a good article by Scorsese by the way, I don't disagree with him entirely, though I still think the general production rate of good, proper 'film' in the classic sense of the word is a lot healthier than many give it credit for.

As stated by someone above, there's been people in this thread claiming there's been very little good movies made in recent years, and even off the top of my head (and excluding countless dozens of other examples) I listed a fairly robust and healthy list of excellent films I've seen in the cinema in recent years.

I've seen all the Marvel movies, loved a few, liked most, was indifferent towards a few, but I enjoy what they bring to the table, though if someone asked me to list my 50 top movies of all time, I doubt any would feature for me personally.

But I don't like the utter disrepect that's often shown to both them and the receptive audience, as if they're entirely devoid of thought or purpose, and just the equivalent of grey gruel lapped up by distracted minds too starved of explosions and lasers to care for any value in it.

As someone who absolute loves Scorsese's movies too, I simply don't quite get the lack of realistic dialogue around getting the ludicriously expensive The Irishman made in the first place. As he notes himself, he's extremely lucky that Netflix were there in the end. He would've had the same problem pre-blockbuster era.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

It's brand loyalty. You're hurting someone's chosen brand and therefore a defence is needed.

It's a triumph of studio marketing.

As I said before, this doesn't hurt Marvel at all. Even if it did it is in rude health for the foreseeable future.

If it was pure brand loyalty then the points of those who disagree with Scorsese would be easily countered and shut down but the standard response is 'lol, look at the fanboyzzzz', posters disappearing, or in your case excusing yourself for a nap :pac:

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

As someone who absolute loves Scorsese's movies too, I simply don't quite get the lack of realistic dialogue around getting the ludicriously expensive The Irishman made in the first place. As he notes himself, he's extremely lucky that Netflix were there in the end. He would've had the same problem pre-blockbuster era.

Ballooning budget for the Irishman aside, he found it difficult to get backing even when it wasn't $160 million.

It's clear that the cost went out of control for that film, due to the de-ageing techniques he wanted to pursue, but even when it was more reasonable, he was still finding it difficult to get it financed.

He also had a hard time scraping together the money for 'Silence' as well apparently.

Also, I'm not so sure that the budget of 'The Irishman' is that "ludicrously expensive". A lot of movies come in between 100 and 150 these days. But, I'm not an expert on budgets and often they're masked. So you can take this as you want.

https://parlaystudios.com/blog/feature-film-budget-breakdown/

https://hollywood-movies.yoexpert.com/movies/what-is-the-average-movie-budget-for-a-hollywood-m-1403.html

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

As I said before, this doesn't hurt Marvel at all. Even if it did it is in rude health for the foreseeable future.

If it was pure brand loyalty then the points of those who disagree with Scorsese would be easily countered and shut down but the standard response is 'lol, look at the fanboyzzzz', posters disappearing, or in your case excusing yourself for a nap :pac:

what are you talking about?

Dyr

Homelander wrote: »

As stated by someone above, there's been people in this thread claiming there's been very little good movies made in recent years, and even off the top of my head (and excluding countless dozens of other examples) I listed a fairly robust and healthy list of excellent films I've seen in the cinema in recent years.
.

Fire off that list there

I was just talking to someone recently about the quality of mainstream films in the 90s and we started going through Wikipedia for lists of 90s films. Eye opening to remember just how much quality there was in comparison to the last decade


I mentioned that Disney were trying monopolize theaters what they're actually rumoured to be doing is archiving off all the classics they own via Fox so theaters can no longer show them.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/09/disney-classic-fox-library-repertory-bookings-1202170485/

Homelander

Don't disagree with many of your points Tony, but I also think Silence was a very niche subject with limited cinematic appeal and I'm not surprised he had difficulty getting funding for that either, despite having a comparitively modest budget. I say that as a fan and cinema viewer.

You are also correct in that $160M is not entirely remarkable in the overall scheme of things in isolation, but it's more so that it is for what The Irishman is - a crime-drama epic that lacks in bankable stars in the context of a) today's audiences and b) the cost of the film.

I take the point that the initial costing may have been significantly lower, but even hypothetically, $100M is a big gamble for what The Irishman actually is, from an impartial and realistic POV. (as well as studio)

You have films like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with a knock-out, box-office relevant cast, and in the broader sense of things, Tarantino is far more audience friendly than Scorsese in today's world, and even that cost 'just' $95M.

There are many projects with far more box-office-drawing casts and more 'mass market' appeal (in the sense that they should translate excellent internationally in theory) that struggle to get that funding or even close.

Budgets like $160M are pretty much reserved for what are viewed by studios as potentially major blockbusters, and have always been, adjusting for inflation. The Irishman (and a great, great many other films) would never fit that criteria, but typically they don't need to as The Irishman is a total oddball in that regard.

A low-key crime-drama that offers none of the spectacle of a major blockbuster (not for a second implying that's a bad thing, but purely from a studio POV) but commands the same major budget via intense use of CGI.

For me, the big point is that it's not at all just a symptom of the current day either, those kinda of budgets were very rarely intentionally granted in previous decades either for these types of films.

In fact, I would wager that Scorsese is making The Irishman at a time when a) the tech is available but b) the market isn't there, in 2019, to justify the extortionate cost of such tech from any studio POV.

With all this talk of Dark Fate, for example, Terminator 2 cost $100M in 1991. Casino was made 4 years later for $50m, and there's not a chance in hell Scorsese would've gotten 70, 80, or 90m for that movie, irregardless of his astounding cast and the fact he was at the top of his game at that time.

The Irishman is exclusively a costing problem, not good films being turned down, or legendary directors unable to find funding. I think we both know if we're entirely honest, that Scorsese could make several excellent 'conventional' films for the total cost of The Irishman, but he's chosen to make this one now, partly I'm entirely sure due to his current age.

Homelander

Bambi wrote: »

Fire off that list there

I think the only two I didn't see in the cinema were Annihilation (Netflix) and The Captain (Der Hauptmann).

And I'm not saying anyone will, but please, generally speaking, let's not go down the road of "hang on, X or Y movie was crap". It was just a general list of movies, as a major film fan, I felt were quite excellent in the past 2 or 3 years, and most of which I saw in the cinema.

Obviously not everyone will agree with all of them, but it was a counter-point to a particular poster who claimed he only had been to the cinema 3 or 4 times in recent years because nothing good was being made, and he doesn't buy DVD's anymore for the same reason.

And keeping in mind it's only the tip of the iceberg; I've seen manyfold that many movies, and twice as many excellent movies, just no way I can remember them all.

A Quiet Place
Annihilation
Isle of Dogs
Green Book
The Mule
Blade Runner 2049
A Prayer Before Dawn
Never Grow Old
Gwen
Hostiles
Journey's End
Upgrade
Bad Times at the El Royale
You Were Never Really Here
High Life
Black Klansman
Vice
The Captain
Silence
It Comes at Night
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Under the Silver Lake
The Death of Stalin
Good Time
Mudbound
Only the Brave
A Star is Born
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing
Hereditary
I, Tonya
Get Out
Logan
The Shape of Water
The Disaster Artist

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

I haven't, i've seen most of the Marvels thou and he's spot on in what he says.
Obviously very intelligent.

So he can now credibly judge a movie without actually watching it? That's not intelligence, it is being psychic. Maybe he is mad just mad at Superhero movies as they are outing his superpowers.

I didn't mention you in that post, that was directed at all the condescending "Old man yelling at clouds", "cranky old man", "he needs to shut his mouth" type of posts about The Great Man™ in this thread.

Sounds like it might be a case of pot vs kettle when it comes to that 'butthurt fanboy' comment?

Marty namechecked Marvel, as they are the top dogs but really he was talking about all/or most modern franchises made by committee, as he made clear in the NYP article.
Here's the quote:

"They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."

So he is saying all franchises aren't cinema? Do you agree with him on that or will you have a few exceptions for ones you like?

You've had a few condescending comments in this thread yourself my friend, as always pots and kettles.

And unless you've never in your life said a band or film is **** then no only do you have a superiority complex of your own but a huge big dollop of hypocrisy to go with it.

You clearly don't know what a superiority complex is. There is a big difference between saying 'something is ****' and a person saying 'something is ****' and acting like they're superior to those that enjoyed it. I've done plenty of the former but I'll challenge you to find posts here of me doing the latter.

I'm still waiting on you actually attempt to counter the points I made where I disagreed ('rebuked') the op-ed. Feel like I'll be waiting a while though.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

what are you talking about?

Just read the thread.

Fanboys

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

I'll take Marty's credibility over butthurt fanboys everytime.

You excusing yourself to go for a nap

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh you're right, so scrap that.

I'm still at work and knackered, with not a lot of time to look into this stuff.

In any case, I don't have a problem with Socrsese's point of view, nor Coppola or Loach for that matter.

You think it's baloney.

*shrug

Homelander

Ah look lads, let's keep it civil on all sides. I like to think as film fans we're capable of a rational discussion about the issue without it boiling down to base level stuff like butthurt fanboys (on either side) or whatever. I mean for example above, Tony was willing to admit he had the maths wrong on that particular post (even though I disagree about the baloney comment) during that particular debate, so he's being reasonable about it. We're not all going to agree on everything in the wider sense of things.

As I said, this is really not a Marvel v. Scorsese debate, some may think I'm attacking the latter, defending the former, whatever, but it's really neither, I'm just a realist film-fan interested in dissecting this debate surrounding The Irishman and Scorseses comments on a rational level.

I could write a novel about the list of directors I'd love to see given $150M budgets for certain projects, but I'm equally aware that said directors wouldn't have been handed that sort of relative budget in any given decade, regardless of the cast assembled, them being at the peak of their careers, and so on.

For example, I'd love to see Spielberg handed a $150-200m budget to make a film about the Battle of Kursk, but I'd say there aren't too many (if any) studios would be remotely interested in financing such a project, and I wouldn't be blaming Marvel or the current climate.

Greyfox

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a feel of religious zealotry in the defense of the superhero stuff here. A kind of vested interest, that feels very corporate.

No we just don't like people slating the Marvel films that are very good. Blockbuster films are just as much part of cinema as the films the Oscars love.

Foxtrol

Homelander wrote: »

Ah look lads, let's keep it civil on all sides. I like to think as film fans we're capable of a rational discussion about the issue without it boiling down to base level stuff like butthurt fanboys (on either side) or whatever. I mean for example above, Tony was willing to admit he had the maths wrong on that particular post (even though I disagree about the baloney comment) during that particular debate, so he's being reasonable about it. We're not all going to agree on everything in the wider sense of things.

As I said, this is really not a Marvel v. Scorsese debate, some may think I'm attacking the latter, defending the former, whatever, but it's really neither, I'm just a realist film-fan interested in dissecting this debate surrounding The Irishman and Scorseses comments on a rational level.

I could write a novel about the list of directors I'd love to see given $150M budgets for certain projects, but I'm equally aware that said directors wouldn't have been handed that sort of relative budget in any given decade, regardless of the cast assembled, them being at the peak of their careers, and so on.

For example, I'd love to see Spielberg handed a $150-200m budget to make a film about the Battle of Kursk, but I'd say there aren't too many (if any) studios would be remotely interested in financing such a project, and I wouldn't be blaming Marvel or the current climate.

At the same time Tony went from admitting he was wrong on that point, giving up trying to defend Scorsese on it, to coming back a few hours later with the garbage below, implying that there is no valid disagreement with Scorsese.

Tony EH wrote: »

It's brand loyalty. You're hurting someone's chosen brand and therefore a defence is needed.

It's a triumph of studio marketing.

Your overall point is fair though. I'm more than happy to discuss my specific issues with Scorsese's original comments and op-ed. They are:

1) he admits he has only 'tried to watch a few of them' where he loses nearly all credibility
2) he has still refused to acknowledge the Irishman's cost and the impact that has on him getting funding
3) he tries to twist that studios aren't taking risks, which isn't true. His issue really is that they aren't taking the risks that he wants them to take
4) he claims that the audience is being 'sold one type of thing' and that is why they want it, ignoring that superhero movies make up a tiny percentage of movies released. He then tries to twist it in the op-ed to 'modern franchises' which is an even more ludicrous if he is now claiming that none of them are 'cinema'
5) comparing Hitchcock’s movies to Marvel or any other modern franchise is like apples to oranges.
6) in general it reads as a manifesto of someone who decided Marvel is the issue and then tried to tie as many problems as he could to it, rather than reflecting on 'here is the problems I see in the industry, what is the main cause of them?'

Dyr

Homelander wrote: »

I think the only two I didn't see in the cinema were Annihilation (Netflix) and The Captain (Der Hauptmann).

And I'm not saying anyone will, but please, generally speaking, let's not go down the road of "hang on, X or Y movie was crap". It was just a general list of movies, as a major film fan, I felt were quite excellent in the past 2 or 3 years, and most of which I saw in the cinema.

Obviously not everyone will agree with all of them, but it was a counter-point to a particular poster who claimed he only had been to the cinema 3 or 4 times in recent years because nothing good was being made, and he doesn't buy DVD's anymore for the same reason.

And keeping in mind it's only the tip of the iceberg; I've seen manyfold that many movies, and twice as many excellent movies, just no way I can remember them all.

That list fairly eloquently makes my point that quality nosedived over the last ten years. So many over hyped films.

Homelander

Bambi wrote: »

That list fairly eloquently makes my point that quality nosedived over the last ten years. So many over hyped films.

Fair enough, that's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it.

johnny_ultimate

Two things:

1) I'm repeating myself here, but I would strongly kick back against the idea of Scorsese being driven primarily by simple self-interest and bitterness about The Irishman's financing woes. It is a factor? I'm sure it is. But once again - and this bears repeating - there is probably no filmmaker on the planet who has done more to support world cinema, independent cinema and young / up-and-coming / minority filmmakers. He throws his name behind productions by the likes of Alice Rohrwacher and Ben Wheatley. Two of the best films (three if you count The Irishman) I've seen this year - The Souvenir and Uncut Gems - were produced by him, and they are both rather small productions indeed, a world away from a $160m mob epic. The World Cinema Project, meanwhile, is one of the great film preservation projects of recent times, and an invaluable project for Scorsese to put his significant influence behind.

Scorsese may be frustrated at his own difficulties, but more so I'm sure he's frustrated as a cinephile - to see small, interesting and diverse films struggle to get on to big screens. And this is the man who has spent considerable energies trying to make sure the small, interesting and diverse films make it to big screens.

2) There are some of us who genuinely, passionately believe that most Marvel films do not rise to level of being 'good' - let alone 'very good'. I mean that as no offence to anyone who does like them, or the people involved in making them. Sure, the first batch of MCU films were good fun; Black Panther was a substantial and welcome leap towards making something with a bit more substance to it; and the directors of the likes of GotG and Ragnarok got a little more of themselves in there than most of the others. But I've seen nearly all of them (the two Ant-Man films, Dr Strange and the latest Spider-Man excepted IIRC) and would struggle to rank even the best of them as anything more than 'decent fun'.

As Scorsese says, it's a "matter of personal taste and temperament". I'm like four decades younger than him, but I simply do not care for the MCU films. Reading this it's clear some agree with that, and others disagree with that. That's fine - important simply to accept that the other viewpoint exists and not merely out of bad faith, ignorance or elitism

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

So he can now credibly judge a movie without actually watching it? That's not intelligence, it is being psychic. Maybe he is mad just mad at Superhero movies as they are outing his superpowers.

However he came to right conclusion, he came to the right conclusion. Call it superpowers, The Force or whatever you want....

Foxtrol wrote: »

Sounds like it might be a case of pot vs kettle when it comes to that 'butthurt fanboy' comment?

Will always stick up for Marty, make no excuses.

Foxtrol wrote: »

So he is saying all franchises aren't cinema? Do you agree with him on that or will you have a few exceptions for ones you like?

Don't think he's saying all franchises, i think he's saying modern franchises which i would take to mean the current prevailing trend. Let's not go all Sith on it just to try to win an argument!

I'm a fan of Star Wars since birth and i would absolutely agree with him in regards to the current Star Wars films being driven by committee, vetted, tested, refined, revetted etc.

Foxtrol wrote: »

You clearly don't know what a superiority complex is. There is a big difference between saying 'something is ****' and a person saying 'something is ****' and acting like they're superior to those that enjoyed it. I've done plenty of the former but I'll challenge you to find posts here of me doing the latter.

I suspect the difference may be you think people who **** on stuff you like have one and when you **** on something else you don't, see it all the time.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm still waiting on you actually attempt to counter the points I made where I disagreed ('rebuked') the op-ed. Feel like I'll be waiting a while though.

Your first point was an attempt to discredit the speaker not refute his points, your second point was that because some Superhero(franchises Marty said) films are not successful that means that the over abundance of this type of film does not lead to an increase the demand.

We've been over this, i believe that your reasoning to incorrect. People don't stop eating fast food cos Supermac's is ****

Foxtrol wrote: »

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Do you agree or disagree with Marty here?

Foxtrol

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Two things:

1) I'm repeating myself here, but I would strongly kick back against the idea of Scorsese being driven primarily by simple self-interest and bitterness about The Irishman's financing woes. It is a factor? I'm sure it is. But once again - and this bears repeating - there is probably no filmmaker on the planet who has done more to support world cinema, independent cinema and young / up-and-coming / minority filmmakers. He throws his name behind productions by the likes of Alice Rohrwacher and Ben Wheatley. Two of the best films (three if you count The Irishman) I've seen this year - The Souvenir and Uncut Gems - were produced by him, and they are both rather small productions indeed, a world away from a $160m mob epic. The World Cinema Project, meanwhile, is one of the great film preservation projects of recent times, and an invaluable project for Scorsese to put his significant influence behind.

Scorsese may be frustrated at his own difficulties, but more so I'm sure he's frustrated as a cinephile - to see small, interesting and diverse films struggle to get on to big screens. And this is the man who has spent considerable energies trying to make sure the small, interesting and diverse films make it to big screens.

You called his op-ed earlier 'superb', whereas I believe it would hold a lot more weight if he focused on the argument you just made here than continuing to complain about his recent movie, especially when it borderline bad faith when he doesn't reveal the insane cost of it.

Even if you accept the validity of his points on modern franchises I see it as being the easy argument to make that will do nothing for his cause rather than trying to have a more difficult and risky conversation that could have much more impact. If it was others making these statements I would say they are just courting media attention for their movie.

2) There are some of us who genuinely, passionately believe that most Marvel films do not rise to level of being 'good' - let alone 'very good'. I mean that as no offence to anyone who does like them, or the people involved in making them. Sure, the first batch of MCU films were good fun; Black Panther was a substantial and welcome leap towards making something with a bit more substance to it; and the directors of the likes of GotG and Ragnarok got a little more of themselves in there than most of the others. But I've seen nearly all of them (the two Ant-Man films, Dr Strange and the latest Spider-Man excepted IIRC) and would struggle to rank even the best of them as anything more than 'decent fun'.

As Scorsese says, it's a "matter of personal taste and temperament". I'm like four decades younger than him, but I simply do not care for the MCU films. Reading this it's clear some agree with that, and others disagree with that. That's fine - important simply to accept that the other viewpoint exists and not merely out of bad faith, ignorance or elitism

See I fully agree with that sentiment, however there is a big difference between a more nuanced "matter of personal taste and temperament" and stating and continuing to defend a statement that "Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema", especially after admitting that he has barely watched any of them. The latter clearly crosses the line into elitism.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

However he came to right conclusion, he came to the right conclusion. Call it superpowers, The Force or whatever you want....

There is no right conclusion, it is all opinions. I don't count anyone as credible if they come to an opinion about 23 movies (or 100s of movies if we're now talking about all modern franchises) having tried to watch a few. If you value an opinion of someone who does so little research then we can agree to disagree.

Don't think he's saying all franchises, i think he's saying modern franchises which i would take to mean the current prevailing trend. Let's not go all Sith on it just to try to win an argument!

I'm a fan of Star Wars since birth and i would absolutely agree with him in regards to the current Star Wars films being driven by committee, vetted, tested, refined, revetted etc.

What is your line for modern franchises? Is Lord of the Rings not cinema? Is Toy Story not cinema? Are all Alien movies not cinema? How about all Die Hard movies? Maybe Indiana Jones isnt cinema? Nolan's Batman movies not cinema?

Do you agree or disagree with Marty here?

Partially. Are they audience tested and market researched - absolutely. Are all modern franchises or even MCU movies sequels in name but remakes in spirit - absolutely not.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

What is your line for modern franchises? Is Lord of the Rings not cinema? Is Toy Story not cinema? Are all Alien movies not cinema? How about all Die Hard movies? Maybe Indiana Jones isnt cinema? Nolan's Batman movies not cinema?

Crux of the matter is Scorsese's quote on control, vetting & consumption. Boardroom decisions based on marketing metrics trumping artistic vision.

Disney being the worst offenders but everyone trying to reboot or reignite a franchise is following their lead.

- Lord of the Rings - One director with a singular vision to bring a work to literature to screen. Absolutely not, quality of the final outcome debatable.

- Toy Story - not seen

- First 2 Aliens were good, Cameron had the sense not to repeat the formula.

- Everything after the original Die Hard falls short of the mark. When they eventually reboot, it will fall into Marty's formula.

- Batman Begins was fun, Dark Knight sucked all the fun out & he seemed disinterested by the third one. But he got his vision somewhat across, which is why it stands out from the dross. i'd still bin it for the potential of Aronofsky's version if i had the choice.

The irony of this one is that if the Batman franchise hadn't been at such a low ebb after the 90s and had been as successful as the current MCU Nolan would never have gotten the gig.

As Ridley Scott said about being offered a Star Wars film by Disney/Lucasfilm:

"No, no. I'm too dangerous for that. I think they like to be in control, and I like to be in control myself."


In the same way the music industry ditched tempremental artists due to huge contract disputes by the likes of Neil Young,Prince & George Micheal and in the 90s introduced the conveyor belt model of hugely hyped, easily controlled, disposible generic pop stars the modern film studios look to sell the same kind of bland, safe, easily digestible, formulaic stuff.

A new idea has no measurable metrics, and as such is a bad one.

Homelander

Honestly can't give that opinion any real credibility.

Claiming Lord of the Rings was not of quality. Speaks for itself, entitled to said opinion but utterly against the grain in every way imaginable. You'd have a point with The Hobbit, but not LOTR.

Toy Story, one of the biggest animated franchises imaginable and critically acclaimed, but you haven't seen any. OK, fair enough.

Agree that everything after Aliens was unremarkable to poor, but doesn't change the fact that the franchise had huge potential and led to Alien3, Resurrection, Prometheus and Covenant. Quality debatable granted, personally hated Resurrection and Covenant, but they were major and entirely understandable cinematic forces with huge potential, in any decade. So no real confusion over how they were made.

Die Hard 2, and With a Vengence, both considered two prime examples of how to do sequels successfully, but you're disregarding both, once again, against the grain. OK. Granted Die Hard 5 was an abomination, but 2, 3 and arguably 4, were decent entries.

Dark Knight was unremarkable, if I'm understanding that's your implication? Can absolutely be generally disregarded as it's considered one of the best superhero movies of all time. Shocked you'd even claim such a thing.

If that's your honest debate, it's not very convincing.

ErnestBorgnine

Homelander wrote: »

Honestly can't give that opinion any real credibility.

Claiming Lord of the Rings was not of quality. Speaks for itself, entitled to said opinion but utterly against the grain in every way imaginable. You'd have a point with The Hobbit, but not LOTR.

I didn't say it wasn't quality, i actually quite like it. The Two Towers particularly.

Homelander wrote: »

Die Hard 2, and With a Vengence, both considered two prime examples of how to do sequels successfully, but you're disregarding both, once again, against the grain. OK. Granted Die Hard 5 was an abomination, but 2, 3 and arguably 4, were decent entries.

2 & with a Vengence were passable, don't hold a candle to the original.

Homelander wrote: »

Dark Knight was unremarkable, if I'm understanding that's your implication? Can absolutely be generally disregarded as it's considered one of the best superhero movies of all time. Shocked you'd even claim such a thing.

Dark Knight was good yeah but lacked the comic book sense of fun of the first i though. Took itself a bit too seriously, but eminently more watchable than 95% of the comic book fare. I just prefer the first.

Homelander wrote: »

If that's your honest debate, it's not very convincing.

My personal preference for films doesn't convince you of......what exactly?

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Crux of the matter is Scorsese's quote on control, vetting & consumption. Boardroom decisions based on marketing metrics trumping artistic vision.

Disney being the worst offenders but everyone trying to reboot or reignite a franchise is following their lead.

- Lord of the Rings - One director with a singular vision to bring a work to literature to screen. Absolutely not, quality of the final outcome debatable.

- Toy Story - not seen

- First 2 Aliens were good, Cameron had the sense not to repeat the formula.

- Everything after the original Die Hard falls short of the mark. When they eventually reboot, it will fall into Marty's formula.

- Batman Begins was fun, Dark Knight sucked all the fun out & he seemed disinterested by the third one. But he got his vision somewhat across, which is why it stands out from the dross. i'd still bin it for the potential of Aronofsky's version if i had the choice.

The irony of this one is that if the Batman franchise hadn't been at such a low ebb after the 90s and had been as successful as the current MCU Nolan would never have gotten the gig.

As Ridley Scott said about being offered a Star Wars film by Disney/Lucasfilm:

"No, no. I'm too dangerous for that. I think they like to be in control, and I like to be in control myself."


In the same way the music industry ditched tempremental artists due to huge contract disputes by the likes of Neil Young,Prince & George Micheal and in the 90s introduced the conveyor belt model of hugely hyped, easily controlled, disposible generic pop stars the modern film studios look to sell the same kind of bland, safe, easily digestible, formulaic stuff.

A new idea has no measurable metrics, and as such is a bad one.

The question wasn't to provide reviews of the franchises, it was whether you believe they all also 'aren't cinema'?

What is the line for what movies aren't cinema now if you go along with Scorsese's world view? Is it all 'modern franchises'? Is it any movie that there is any input from the boardroom, market research done on them, or post production reshoots? Is it just any movies that he doesn't like? Is it whole genre's that he can't bother to do more than 'try to watch a few' of them. From the sound of things if we go along with him we'll quickly run out of movies that are deemed cinema.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

The question wasn't to provide reviews of the franchises, it was whether you believe they all also 'aren't cinema'?

What is the line for what movies aren't cinema now if you go along with Scorsese's world view? Is it all 'modern franchises'? Is it any movie that there is any input from the boardroom, market research done on them, or post production reshoots? Is it just any movies that he doesn't like? Is it whole genre's that he can't bother to do more than 'try to watch a few' of them. From the sound of things if we go along with him we'll quickly run out of movies that are deemed cinema.

Read it again, more slowly this time. Perhaps you'll pick up the point.

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

I take the point that the initial costing may have been significantly lower, but even hypothetically, $100M is a big gamble for what The Irishman actually is, from an impartial and realistic POV. (as well as studio)

Is it though? Is it any more of a gamble than 90 million for 'The Departed'?

Anyway, all of this bean counting aside, I personally think Scorsese was wrong to go down the route of de-aging myself. From seeing some of it on the trailers, I wasn't that impressed, I have to say, and the "computery" nature of it all stood out like a sore thumb. The shot below looks terrible:







However, there may have been a lot of cleaning up of the images between the trailer cut and the final cut of the actual film. But, I won't know til Friday.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

You excusing yourself to go for a nap

That's not excusing myself for a "nap". I was saying that I was still at work at half bleedin 10 and I was tired, which is why my budget calcs were off in the post to Homelander.

Jesus, you're a weird one. :pac:

pixelburp

Problem with the de-ageing is that no matter how good it is - and IMO it was borderline flawless in Captain Marvel - there's no disguising the physicality, or lack thereof, of the actor they're trying to make younger; Samuel L Jackson looked like his 1990s self no question, but moved like the 70+ year old man he is now, the film doing its best to hide his slower, more self-conscious gait. There was a fist-fight scene where his actual age was pretty obvious, though perhaps that's the fault of the director being unable to hide Jackson's lack of heft.

I suspect it'll be the same problem with The Irishman, with any scenes requiring DeNiro, Pesci or Pacino to be energetic (I believe the film starts in WW2, so god knows how they'll paper over that particular crack; deNiro's character conveniently sitting down throughout perhaps!)

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I believe the film starts in WW2, so god knows how they'll paper over that particular crack; deNiro's character conveniently sitting down throughout perhaps!

Well there's a shot of De Niro in his GI gear in the trailer and that doesn't look convincing either TBH.

Homelander

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

My personal preference for films doesn't convince you of......what exactly?

The debate is centred on modern film and it's quality.

You've stated that the quality of one of the most well recognised finest trilogies, Lord of the Rings, is debatable.

"One director with a singular vision" as a criticism, despite films of that ilk needing precisely that, or else you end up with a situation like the new Star Wars trilogy.

Inferred that what's considered the best 'superhero' movie ever is not a good movie.

It seems to me that you're trying a little too hard to win an argument or discredit certain posters, rather than have a logical debate.

I could claim that Scary Movie 3 is the best movie ever made, or Goodfellas is a terrible movie, and it'd be a perfectly fine opinion, but hardly productive or worth giving weight to in a discussion about the landscape of current cinema.

johnny_ultimate

The de-aging in The Irishman is mostly perfectly acceptable, one or two inevitable moments of slight uncanny valley aside. There’s just one scene early on where it’s clearly an elderly Robert de Niro with a young face involved in an assault scene... the choice of angle is really weird and just emphasises that de Niro is very much not in his 30s.

pixelburp

Whilst I haven't seen it, The Gemini Man made the smart move of picking an "old" actor who was still very much capable of performing the physical scenes required of his "younger" self, so at least from the trailers the physicality works(I'm assuming Smith played both roles, now that I'm typing I'm not sure and wonder if they just used a body double). You just can't disguise the mannerisms, and how older folk compose themselves or move. Even when not using de-ageing, asking OAPs to perform action scenes is farcical: I still remember doddery old Han Solo "running" in various scenes of Episode VII...

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The de-aging in The Irishman is mostly perfectly acceptable, one or two inevitable moments of slight uncanny valley aside. There’s just one scene early on where it’s clearly an elderly Robert de Niro with a young face involved in an assault scene... the choice of angle is really weird and just emphasises that de Niro is very much not in his 30s.

Did you see this at a festival or something?

johnny_ultimate

Tony EH wrote: »

Did you see this at a festival or something?

There were a bunch of Irish screenings a few weeks ago to coincide with the London premiere.