Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

Options
15791011

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,198 ✭✭✭artvanderlay


    Dog Murphy wrote: »
    I used to go to the cinema on a regular basis probably close to once a month and sometimes would even take days off work to go if it was something I didn't want to watch when there was a big crowd on a Saturday. When I was unemployed for almost all of 2010 and 2011 I went to the cinema almost once a week for long spells.

    In the last 3 or 4 years I've checked the cinema listings and very little has appealed to me and I've only been to the cinema a couple of times in the last 3 or 4 years.

    I used to like the Marvel films but after a while got sick of them as there are far too many of them and essentially seem to be not films anymore just a TV series on a big screen, also superhero films went from being enjoyable fun pieces of entertainment with some cleverness to them to essentially a load of noise with very little emphasis on anything other than big noisy set pieces. I remember the first Avengers film getting good reviews and when I watched it it as probably one of the worst films I'd seen in years just unbelievably boring crap. Prior to 2010 superhero films used to be a bit of fun and there were maybe only a couple per year, now they have consumed everything and it seems 90% of films getting a wide release in a cinema are either part of a franchise or a remake of a film.

    My DVD buying of films on DVD has declined massively in the last couple of years as there seems to be a a lot less I'm interested in watching that there was in the past.


    Amen to this. I agree 100% with what you said.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,198 ✭✭✭artvanderlay


    Greyfox wrote: »
    I hate film snobs, they dont like something so they think it's ok to put down other people rather than accept that people like different things and they dont know how to give credit when credit is due.

    Your in the minority if you think their bland and loads of film critics have Marvel films they loved. Theirs no slacking of interest because their good stories, witty dialogue, likable characters and have plenty of action. Most of the films get good reviews, yes plenty of people don't like them but no film is liked by everybody. You hate them and your entitled to your opinion but your in the minority. Lots of young people watch superhero films and don't watch better films and lots of people don't watch any sf/fantasy/superhero films.. both groups are idiots.

    Your allowed love Marvel films as well as loving Gone with the wind and Casablanca and people like myself enjoy both. Lots of young people overlook great old films but that has nothing to do with Marvel as that has been happening for decades.

    I plan to watch both Shindlers list and Guardians of the galaxy again soon. Now Shindlers list is a much better film but I might end up been more in the mood to rewatch Guardians OTG. Their totally different films but ultimately their both cinema




    I hate your mother, because she gave birth to you!


    Seriously though, I have an opinion, you have an opinion and arguing is just going to make us more close-minded and to dig our heels in even more. I propose a movie night, where everybody on this thread meets up, realise we have more in common than we thought and have a lovely bonding evening, over drinks and movies. ***Optional pissed-up punch-up in a car park afterwards, when our initial disagreement rears its ugly head again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭Homelander


    I can't take anyone seriously who claims there's so little good films being made that they've only been to the cinema a handful of times in several years, and have stopped buying DVDs.

    Excluding all 'superhero' and general blockbuster movies, including remakes or franchise films (notwithstanding that many are excellent movies), for the purpose of your argument.

    Here's a list of my favorite movies I saw over the past 3 or so years - the vast majority in the cinema - that were critically well received and I enjoyed immensely.

    Anyone that would claim there's only 3 or 4 good movies in there.....and keeping in mind I'm probably missing tons of movies that I can't recall at this moment, so it's really tip of the iceberg here.

    Marvel simply isn't killing good cinema, nor the production of good movies, just like it's not responsible for the inroads being made by streaming platforms and VOD and the prevalence of large, high quality entertainment setups in modern households.

    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

    Which 3 or 4 of these did you deem worth watching out of curiosity? Or deem worth buying?

    And there's not really much point saying "Oh, I said movies I'm interested in" because the inherent argument was that far, far less - even very little - good movies are being made anymore due to the perceived domination of Marvel at the expense of 'real' films.

    I disagree entirely, as would most critics I'd wager, and no real genuine film fan - regardless of whether they enjoy Marvel movies or others of the same ilk or not - would make such a claim.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,170 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    Movies are like music. There's not really a saturation point so I don't think the idea that marvel are preventing good stuff from getting made holds any water. The likes of Ed Sheeren sell millions of records of complete scutter. Does it stop good music from getting made? no way.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    They don't prevent production, but they are preventing screenings at cinemas. Amazon and Netflix are absorbing that market, but the facts are right there in the cinema schedules: Disney and its copycats are dominating the screens, with showings of blockbusters on a near half hour rotation. Hell I vaguely remember a complaint that a new "art house" cinema in Galway was caught showing blockbusters, pleading "pop culture" as an excuse, so they're all guilty.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭Homelander


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Hell I vaguely remember a complaint that a new "art house" cinema in Galway was caught showing blockbusters, pleading "pop culture" as an excuse, so they're all guilty.

    It wasn't 'caught', it simply just shows a mix of films for financial reasons. A multi-million euro cinema in the heart of a city isn't going to survive without having that mix, it still shows far more indie, foreign and lower budget films than any other cinema in the city so its general intent is still valid.

    Eye Cinema in Galway City used to have a dedicated arthouse screen long before this alleged Marvel takeover, and it was generally discontinued through lack of interest, many an excellent film I sat through once or twice a week with a handful of other people in there with me at the best of times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    I propose a movie night, where everybody on this thread meets up, realise we have more in common than we thought and have a lovely bonding evening, over drinks and movies. ***Optional pissed-up punch-up in a car park afterwards, when our initial disagreement rears its ugly head again.

    Sounds like a good idea except the optional punch up, talking to people with opposing opinions should be fun


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 82 ✭✭Dog Murphy


    Homelander wrote: »
    I can't take anyone seriously who claims there's so little good films being made that they've only been to the cinema a handful of times in several years, and have stopped buying DVDs.

    Excluding all 'superhero' and general blockbuster movies, including remakes or franchise films (notwithstanding that many are excellent movies), for the purpose of your argument.

    Here's a list of my favorite movies I saw over the past 3 or so years - the vast majority in the cinema - that were critically well received and I enjoyed immensely.

    Anyone that would claim there's only 3 or 4 good movies in there.....and keeping in mind I'm probably missing tons of movies that I can't recall at this moment, so it's really tip of the iceberg here.

    Marvel simply isn't killing good cinema, nor the production of good movies, just like it's not responsible for the inroads being made by streaming platforms and VOD and the prevalence of large, high quality entertainment setups in modern households.

    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

    Which 3 or 4 of these did you deem worth watching out of curiosity? Or deem worth buying?

    And there's not really much point saying "Oh, I said movies I'm interested in" because the inherent argument was that far, far less - even very little - good movies are being made anymore due to the perceived domination of Marvel at the expense of 'real' films.

    I disagree entirely, as would most critics I'd wager, and no real genuine film fan - regardless of whether they enjoy Marvel movies or others of the same ilk or not - would make such a claim.


    A lot of those films don't get released to all the cinemas or if they do it's only for a short run and can be gone by the time you realise they are in the cinema.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭Homelander


    Dog Murphy wrote: »
    A lot of those films don't get released to all the cinemas or if they do it's only for a short run and can be gone by the time you realise they are in the cinema.


    I saw almost all of those - I think The Captain and Annihilation are the only exceptions - in the cinema. Sure, they're not all going to run for 4 weeks, but I'm interested in films and I check listings every week, most ran for at least two weeks in my locals, few of them much longer.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 17,990 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    Dog Murphy wrote: »
    A lot of those films don't get released to all the cinemas or if they do it's only for a short run and can be gone by the time you realise they are in the cinema.
    And I've gone to a number of these and the cinema is generally quite empty. Can you blame cinemas for not putting them on for longer?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Homelander wrote: »
    Eye Cinema in Galway City used to have a dedicated arthouse screen long before this alleged Marvel takeover, and it was generally discontinued through lack of interest, many an excellent film I sat through once or twice a week with a handful of other people in there with me at the best of times.

    I'm not alleging anything, or said that Marvel were the only or specific culprits, the reality is that large studio blockbusters are dominating cinemas' schedules, at the expense of others. The mid budget crowdpleaser is practically non existent (with notable exceptions like the Downton Abbey movie, gobbling up screenings at my own cinema), due to the topsy turvy rule of scale in Hollywood budgets. As said this is easily shown. Fair point on the Galway cinema, my memory of that was sketchy but the concept of the small, independent cinema is extinct for sure. You only need walk around central Dublin to find a dozen historic cinemas now closed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,369 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Homelander wrote: »
    I saw almost all of those - I think The Captain and Annihilation are the only exceptions - in the cinema. Sure, they're not all going to run for 4 weeks, but I'm interested in films and I check listings every week, most ran for at least two weeks in my locals, few of them much longer.

    Was Annihilation even in the cinema? I thought it was a Netflix exclusive.

    The average adult doesn't go to the cinema much, but they can afford a large screen tv, Netflix, other streaming services and digital purchases and rentals of new releases. That's drawing off a lot of the money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,014 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    MadYaker wrote: »
    I'm not sure why Scorsese felt the need to make this point now.

    Because he's had a massive pain in his arse trying to get his last couple of pictures made. He could barely scrape together the money for 'Silence' and 'The Irishman' had to be dumped onto NetFlix, because they were the only ones willing to pony up for it. It's become harder and harder for film makers to get studios to back their work and even when they do put up some backing, getting the film into the multiplex's isn't guaranteed either.
    MadYaker wrote: »
    Maybe he's just getting old and cranky.

    I don't think so. Nor is it "Old man shouts at Cloud" or any of that shite. He has a very valid point.

    In any case, his point notwithstanding, I don't think Scorsese's troubles are as serious as other film makers who don't have his clout, but have no interest in being a yes man to a major studio.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    Tony EH wrote: »
    I don't think so. Nor is it "Old man shouts at Cloud" or any of that shite. He has a very valid point.

    He doesn't, he's just been a cranky and frustrated old man. If Marvel are not cinema then star wars is also not cinema and if someone says Star Wars is not cinema then there just been ignorant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Can you show me on the doll where the bad people hurt your feelings?

    Seriously, that is some classic A grade victim complex you've just waffled on about there.

    Yes, some of us are a bit disappointed that what are essential kids films are taking the cinema into a very limited direction. We aren't saying you are not allowed to enjoy these films, we may find it baffling, but nowhere has anyone in here said that they should be banned. If you enjoy MCU films, great more power to you, but can you at least acknowledge the impact they are having upon the trends in modern cinema?

    Sorry if calling out obnoxious posts stinking of a superiority complex hits a bit too close to home for you. I'm sure your fellow 'superiors' will provide you plenty of support.

    Where have I claimed anyone is trying to ban these movies? There's being a bit disappointed and then there's posters calling people who have a different taste than them 'morons', 'kids', and 'lowest common denominator' (just from posts here in the last few pages).

    I acknowledge they are having an impact on modern cinema but they aren't the boogeyman that Scorsese and a number of posters here believe. As I said in my early posts in this thread, it is far easier to blame MCU for the issues with the industry than having any self reflection. You have people here moaning that movies of their taste aren't in theaters and then when a list is posted of good movies it turns out they haven't bothered to get off their a$$es to go see them. If people don't care enough to make an effort to go during their releases then it is hard to take complaints of there not being more similar movies available as anything other than self-entitled moaning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Also, I see Scorsese's moan has been twisted to seem like an MCU movie would block the development of multiple of the type that he claims he struggled to get funding for.

    In reality the cost of the Irishman is on par with many non-ensemble Marvel movies. It wasn't as if he was looking to make some small intimate movie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,198 ✭✭✭artvanderlay


    Greyfox wrote: »
    He doesn't, he's just been a cranky and frustrated old man. If Marvel are not cinema then star wars is also not cinema and if someone says Star Wars is not cinema then there just been ignorant.


    Star Wars is beautiful to look at, and the effects by Lucas and his team were, and still are, quite incredible. Very innovative and original. The story in Star Wars was fairly basic, kids-TV standard, but kudos to Lucas for having a vision and executing it spectacularly.


    Marvel movies look like they were made by business executives rather than visionary directors: full of effects, over-loaded with superheroes, banal storylines and dialogue that kids and non-English speakers can easily follow, bloated running time to show how important the movie is. They are horrible movies to look at too: washed out, dull, boring and overly CGI-ed. They don't impress me in the slightest.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    In reality the cost of the Irishman is on par with many non-ensemble Marvel movies. It wasn't as if he was looking to make some small intimate movie.

    Yes, though the films he makes aren't necessarily the films he really wants to be making. I think he'd rather be making mid budget films with more creative freedom. Films like Silence which was one of the cheapest films he made in years but which he had a terrible time getting financing for. There's huge pressure on filmmakers to make their films bigger and more expensive.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    That Irishman budget is 100% down to the de-ageing tech being used, which as we know is both expensive and not a guarantee of quality. I suspect were this another studio than Netflix, Scorsese would have been told to simply cast younger actors, but Netflix being nu-tech, loves burning cash for that coveted endless growth. The Irishman is a freak of nature and we've yet to see if all that cash is worth it (the trailers showed the work to be a little so so)

    As it happens, the MCU is the only place I've seen convincing de-ageing FX applied, Captain Marvel being almost flawless (bar Sam Jackson's gait and old man running lol).


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭brianregan09


    There was 3 MCU films this year

    2 next year

    How is this oversaturation


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Star Wars is beautiful to look at, and the effects by Lucas and his team were, and still are, quite incredible. Very innovative and original. The story in Star Wars was fairly basic, kids-TV standard, but kudos to Lucas for having a vision and executing it spectacularly.


    Marvel movies look like they were made by business executives rather than visionary directors: full of effects, over-loaded with superheroes, banal storylines and dialogue that kids and non-English speakers can easily follow, bloated running time to show how important the movie is. They are horrible movies to look at too: washed out, dull, boring and overly CGI-ed. They don't impress me in the slightest.

    Like complaining that western movies are overloaded with cowboys.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,014 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Marvel movies look like they were made by business executives rather than visionary directors: full of effects, over-loaded with superheroes, banal storylines and dialogue that kids and non-English speakers can easily follow, bloated running time to show how important the movie is. They are horrible movies to look at too: washed out, dull, boring and overly CGI-ed. They don't impress me in the slightest.

    These movies are producer led projects, mandated by a studio, with the most basic of story and limited dialogue that will fly in foreign climes. The directors are often secondary to requirements. That's why you have the likes of Colin Trevorrow and yes men like JJ Abrams helming these things.

    They turn up, put in a shift and go home. But there's absolutely nothing special about what they do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,014 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Also, I see Scorsese's moan has been twisted to seem like an MCU movie would block the development of multiple of the type that he claims he struggled to get funding for.

    In reality the cost of the Irishman is on par with many non-ensemble Marvel movies. It wasn't as if he was looking to make some small intimate movie.

    Because he's trying new de-aging techniques. That's where a lot of the budget is going. Personally, I don't think he should have bothered going that route as I cannot imagine that it will be totally convincing. But that's another story.

    However, he couldn't secure the funding from Paramount or other studios, who weren't willing. He had to go to NetFlix, who said they'll put up the money, but on their terms. In other words, a limited cinema run and then off to tele land, meaning the possibility of a lesser audience than might have been the case in theatres, which is remarkable considering who is involved.

    I swear there are some on this thread deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue here.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    There was 3 MCU films this year

    2 next year

    How is this oversaturation

    Can't speak for anyone else, but I suppose it depends on the viewer's tolerance for Superhero movies; I have friends who'd have zero interest in the superhero genre generally, so it can feel like they're everywhere if you don't care for them - especially when they're in cinemas for months on end (which comes back to my point about cinema schedules). There's certainly plenty on TV, no doubt. Maybe not so much the MCU but there are few comics that haven't seen an adaptation to TV.

    Personally, I wouldn't say I'm oversaturated, though I found the quick following of Far From Home after EndGame very jarring and little tiring. I had actually thought the impact of EndGame would have been larger had that been it for the MCU over a year or two. They could have let those endings feel like one, instead we dived straight into Phaser 3.5 / 4. That send-off with EndGame was barely percolating in my mind when BOOM, off went on MCU European Vacation.

    Plus, as much as I enjoy the MCU, I'm not naive to the broader entertainment strategy here, and while there were only 3 MCU films this year, that was coupled with 4 (FOUR!!) live-action Disney remakes, Toy Story 4, and the Fox acquisition. Oversaturation isn't the word I'd use, but I'm feeling a little audience fatigue that increasingly the only mainstream blockbuster entertainment available is Disney owned, whatever Dwayne Johnson's starring in, or just shovelware aimed at the Chinese market. Saturation can be ignored, but choice is feeling a little ... eehhh. I mean it's getting to a point where I won't be surprised if I hear they've acquired IMC or Vue. That's a perception thing sure, but I don't think it's unearned either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭Frank O. Pinion


    Greyfox wrote: »
    Grand if people don't like Marvel films but looking down your nose at people because they dont like the same films as you is not ok
    ...why the hell not? It's just a frame of mind based on movie opinions. It's not morally wrong to be of that wrong of mind, in what way is it "not ok"?

    I "look down my nose" at people who enjoy the MCU the same way as I do people who like utter crap like The Big Bang Theory or Mrs. Brown's Boys. People can judge me for judging others, I don't care. They can act offended online too, it's not like we don't have enough of that...

    It's certainly "ok" to like moronic entertainment, but it's also "ok" to be a bit more sophisticated, and want something more intellectually satisfying from your entertainment. It is really "ok" to have disdain for the MCU and fans of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭mikhail


    Foxtrol wrote: »
    Also, I see Scorsese's moan has been twisted to seem like an MCU movie would block the development of multiple of the type that he claims he struggled to get funding for.

    In reality the cost of the Irishman is on par with many non-ensemble Marvel movies. It wasn't as if he was looking to make some small intimate movie.
    I think it's kind of funny he's used that tech on De Niro, whose big break came playing a young Vito Corleone. Would he have gotten that break today, or would they have used CGI to create a deaged Brando? Is Scorsese denying big roles to younger actors because he's so doggedly attached to his old favourites?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,203 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Mod note: OK some of these posts are getting out of hand. We have no problem whatsoever with people criticising these films or the general trends in cinemagoing, but sneering, condescending comments clearly aimed at provoking or insulting posters here or large groups of people aren’t welcome. Please refer to the forum charter about these kinds of posts. Thanks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Greyfox


    ...why the hell not? It's just a frame of mind based on movie opinions. It's not morally wrong to be of that wrong of mind, in what way is it "not ok"?

    I have friends who do this and I find them to be ignorant. The general consensus of some Marvel films like Infinity war, Endgame, Black Panther, Thor Ragnorak and Guardians of the galaxy is that they are very good films. I'm not saying their masterpieces but their not widely regarded as bad films. (Yes of course some people will hate them like every film). It's a minority of people who think that they are all bad films. Whereas in the case of Mrs Browns boys, walking dead or love Island the majority of people think there rubbish including critics. If I don't like something that's getting good reviews its a case of it been not my type of thing rather than the thing itself been bad.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Tired Gardener


    Greyfox wrote: »
    I have friends who do this and I find them to be ignorant. The general consensus of some Marvel films like Infinity war, Endgame, Black Panther, Thor Ragnorak and Guardians of the galaxy is that they are very good films. I'm not saying their masterpieces but their not widely regarded as bad films. (Yes of course some people will hate them like every film). It's a minority of people who think that they are all bad films. Whereas in the case of Mrs Browns boys, walking dead or love Island the majority of people think there rubbish including critics. If I don't like something that's getting good reviews its a case of it been not my type of thing rather than the thing itself been bad.

    Popularity is not a gauge of quality, nor is it an indication of a lack of quality. If something is popular it is usually die to having a successful marketing campaign behind it.

    Reviews are in a similar situation, not a gauge of worth, rather just the opinion of the person.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,101 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Because he's trying new de-aging techniques. That's where a lot of the budget is going. Personally, I don't think he should have bothered going that route as I cannot imagine that it will be totally convincing. But that's another story.

    However, he couldn't secure the funding from Paramount or other studios, who weren't willing. He had to go to NetFlix, who said they'll put up the money, but on their terms. In other words, a limited cinema run and then off to tele land, meaning the possibility of a lesser audience than might have been the case in theatres, which is remarkable considering who is involved.

    I swear there are some on this thread deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue here.

    I am fully aware of this being the reason why it is so expensive, this huge cost however completely flies in the face of the narrative that Scorsese and posters here are trying to build that poor little film makers are trying to make these amazing cheap movies and are being turned away because all the money is being funneled into the MCU.

    Studios weren't lining up to risk throwing money away on a director who doesn't have any experience using this sort of expensive technology and rather than self reflecting that maybe he should try another route with the movie he decides to point the finger and blame MCU for his problems.


Advertisement