Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

The White Wolf · 17-10-2019 10:00pm

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 · 17-10-2019 10:10pm

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 · 20-10-2019 7:23am

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 · 20-10-2019 7:36am

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 · 20-10-2019 10:04am

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 · 20-10-2019 10:10am

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 · 20-10-2019 10:19am

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 · 20-10-2019 1:47pm

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 · 20-10-2019 2:05pm

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 · 20-10-2019 11:28pm

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 · 21-10-2019 6:49am

Absolutely agree with Scorsese!

Dravokivich · 21-10-2019 12:32pm

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 · 21-10-2019 2:37pm

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 · 21-10-2019 2:48pm

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 · 21-10-2019 2:50pm

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 · 21-10-2019 2:52pm

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 · 21-10-2019 2:53pm

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 · 21-10-2019 2:56pm

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 · 21-10-2019 3:02pm

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 · 21-10-2019 3:44pm

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.

21-10-2019 3:59pm

If Im going to pay 10 euro for a ticket, 10 for popcorn and a drink and then sit through 20 minutes of adverts i will see at home anyway then yeah maybe I do expect something a bit special. Meanwhile I'll wait for Scorsese's latest to go to DVD and watch it at home with a glass of red.

Cinema first became popular when people didnt have televisions at home. The 80s action blockbusters were popular when people had crappy 12 inch TVs at home. Now I reckon most people have at least 32 inches at home. It's almost surprising cinema is still even a thing.

Marvel and Star Wars are both owned by Disney. Was he really expecting Disney to fund his next movie?

Finally, the success of Deadpool shows there are audiences out there for adult themed movies. Maybe he's just bitter that no-one liked the sound of his latest pitch.

FunLover18 · 21-10-2019 4:52pm

Cinema is not one thing, it is not objectively defined. It is both art and entertainment. Some people prefer their movie to be more leaning towards one than the other, some people prefer a balance. Anyone who thinks that one form or genre of film doesn't take as much work as another either knows nothing or is just being deliberately ignorant in order to support their belief that one is more superior.

I don't think anyone would try to argue that cinema and the film industry isn't changing but it has changed before,l and stagnation would just as likely lead to a decline of quality (perceived or otherwise).

There were 4 superhero films this year but apparently that's oversaturation.

s7ryf3925pivug · 21-10-2019 4:58pm

Best marvel films are all xmen films, Logan and the ones written by Jane Goodman at the top of the list. Best marvel TV show is Legion, which is xmen-related. The avengers films are all overrated and mediocre at best.

MaceFace · 21-10-2019 5:24pm

Harlan Agreeable Valentine wrote: »

Best marvel films are all xmen films, Logan and the ones written by Jane Goodman at the top of the list. Best marvel TV show is Legion, which is xmen-related. The avengers films are all overrated and mediocre at best.

In your opinion.
I’d have Iron Man 1 and Thor Ragnarok right up there. IMO unbelievably good movies.
I have no problem with others thinking different but I do have major problems with people belittling me for what I enjoy watching. (Not addressed at you Harlan Agreeable Valentine) If I want to watch Wayne’s World 100 times (which I have done, and I enjoy it, that’s up to me.
Scorsese, nor anyone else should be dictating what is and is not good film.

pixelburp · 21-10-2019 5:38pm

This conversation keeps popping up and keep generating the same kind of response, it's ... weird. Like, I do wonder if there's some kind of perverse seeking of validation here, that if the grand names of cinema (be it Scorsese, Scott, Spielberg etc.) don't praise or accept the MCU - and let's be honest, it's just the MCU that we're only ever talking about here - that the franchise hasn't "made it". I dunno.

Then again. I love the superhero genre (despite over-saturation beginning to crack my resolve a little), and when you remember the barren 90s it's easy to forget the garbage that came before, but I'd never mistake the output for high art, nor necessarily seek it to be. So printing the thoughts of someone even more removed from that genre feels like clickbait and trolling. You might as well ask a Michelin star chef what they thought of (say) Bunsen burger: neither restaurants swim in the same pools so to expect a fair comparison is disingenuous, and only invites bickering and bad blood.

Martin Scorsese doesn't give a damn about superhero movies, and why would he? Why should he be expected to? At 76 the man has nothing left to prove, but at 76 does not represent the zeitgeist either. Seeking his opinion feels like spoiling for a fight.

But as Johnny U. points out, this is hardly some plucky underdog we're talking about here; Disney have cultivated a cultural and financial behemoth, the likes of which Hollywood has never seen before. Billions upon billions of dollars, cinema chains handcuffed by decreasing percentage shares, and the Fox merger a furthering of their suffocation of choice in the cinema. We do not need to go to bat for the MCU. It'll do ok on its own.

Dravokivich · 21-10-2019 5:51pm

MCU is only a part of it. They are looking to discredit films produced by sky and Netflix too.

santana75 · 21-10-2019 6:26pm

The White Wolf wrote: »

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

I think Coppola is right on this one. The Marvel films have absolutely nothing to say. They're empty films, nothing of any real substance is going on there at all. The Godfather was made in 1972, but its still being discovered by new generations and its still being talked about. 40 odd years time I dont think anyone will even remember any of these Marvel films let alone be still discussing them.

ErnestBorgnine · 21-10-2019 6:30pm

MaceFace wrote: »

In your opinion.
I’d have Iron Man 1 and Thor Ragnarok right up there. IMO unbelievably good movies.
I have no problem with others thinking different but I do have major problems with people belittling me for what I enjoy watching. (Not addressed at you blergh) If I want to watch Wayne’s World 100 times (which I have done, and I enjoy it, that’s up to me.
Scorsese, nor anyone else should be dictating what is and is not good film.

Scorsese is not dictating anything to anyone.

If you want to watch Wayne's World 100 times that's up to you, if he wants to state what he views as Cinema that's up to him.

Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

Comments