-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697283]
The MCU don't have a serious and realistic attitude to violence, this is true for most superhero movies regardless of franchise and company. So that precludes it from the thematic heft that other great movies do...such as Godfather and Goodfellas which are about how terrible violence is and how it makes people who deal with it dehumanized more and more.[/QUOTE]
Honestly the violence in Goodfellas wasn't that serious. It was played against rock music and sometimes unintentionally(intentionally?) funny like the whole Billy Batts thing. Same thing with certain parts of Casino. There are so many parodies of Good Fellas ppl definitely caught the humor in those scenes.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697283]It's the job of any movie to be as good as it can be. If you are trying to create a new genre, the bar is a little higher. I mean look at videogames where demand and burden of expectations by gamers have pushed companies and developers to bring in new content, new forms and innovations. It happens whenever a genre or style sticks around for a little time. The last 10 years have seen the superhero genre become the biggest genre in Hollywood which they probably weren't in the 2000-2009 decade (where the biggest franchises were LOTR and Harry Potter -- Fantasy, or literary fantasy was the biggest genre, which led to the YA craze and Game of Thrones that came later).
And if the movies cost a lot of money and are making big claims and getting airs, i.e. Oscar campaigns, then that invites scrutiny.
Are Fast and the Furious campaigning for Oscars and so on? At least when [I]Mad Max Fury Road[/I] did it (and got 6 Oscars) it was because it was the most beloved action movie of that year (and the decade).
PTSD happens to any exposure of violence, and it certainly should for a 40 year old playboy who failed upwards into that cave with a box-of-scraps.
The MCU don't have a serious and realistic attitude to violence, this is true for most superhero movies regardless of franchise and company. So that precludes it from the thematic heft that other great movies do...such as Godfather and Goodfellas which are about how terrible violence is and how it makes people who deal with it dehumanized more and more.[/QUOTE]
Isn't there something to be said about violence having more impact if emotional invested in a character? The MCU has tons of characters people care about and feel for when injured or killed but Scorsese while a master story teller has characters most don't care about so when violence happens to them there is no impact.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697283]And if the movies cost a lot of money and are making big claims and getting airs, i.e. Oscar campaigns, then that invites scrutiny. [/QUOTE]
This is probably alot of what it comes down to. Does any MCU film deserve a best picture Oscar or not?
-
[QUOTE=Jokerz79;4697368]Isn't there something to be said about violence having more impact if emotional invested in a character? The MCU has tons of characters people care about and feel for when injured or killed but Scorsese while a master story teller has characters most don't care about so when violence happens to them there is no impact.[/QUOTE]
Correct nobody gave a damn about what happened to the chars in goodfellas.
-
[QUOTE=Jokerz79;4697368]Isn't there something to be said about violence having more impact if emotional invested in a character? The MCU has tons of characters people care about and feel for when injured or killed but Scorsese while a master story teller has characters most don't care about so when violence happens to them there is no impact.[/QUOTE]
We care when characters in Scorsese’s movies act violently and so on. Whereas the Avengers killing people at the start of Age of ultron is glossed over. Thor claims to have killed 1000 peopland he is framed as some naive bumpkin type so I think it’s hard to say these movies have serious attitudes to violence.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697519]We care when characters in Scorsese’s movies act violently and so on. Whereas the Avengers killing people at the start of Age of ultron is glossed over. Thor claims to have killed 1000 peopland he is framed as some naive bumpkin type so I think it’s hard to say these movies have serious attitudes to violence.[/QUOTE]
Maybe because they were terrorists committing crimes? And really, while the Avengers steam rolled over the Hydra forces, wasn't like they dropped bodies left and right. Some guys survived ;)
-
The MCU didn’t prevent the latest Charlie’s Angels from being released in theaters...
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697519]We care when characters in Scorsese’s movies act violently and so on. Whereas the Avengers killing people at the start of Age of ultron is glossed over. Thor claims to have killed 1000 peopland he is framed as some naive bumpkin type so I think it’s hard to say these movies have serious attitudes to violence.[/QUOTE]
I love Goodfellas one of my favorite films but when Jimmy had the crew whacked I didn't care anymore than I do when Jason Vorhees kills some annoying teenager. I take that back once in a while I like a Friday the 13th Teenager.
-
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697283]It's the job of any movie to be as good as it can be. If you are trying to create a new genre, the bar is a little higher. I mean look at videogames where demand and burden of expectations by gamers have pushed companies and developers to bring in new content, new forms and innovations. It happens whenever a genre or style sticks around for a little time. The last 10 years have seen the superhero genre become the biggest genre in Hollywood which they probably weren't in the 2000-2009 decade (where the biggest franchises were LOTR and Harry Potter -- Fantasy, or literary fantasy was the biggest genre, which led to the YA craze and Game of Thrones that came later).
And if the movies cost a lot of money and are making big claims and getting airs, i.e. Oscar campaigns, then that invites scrutiny.[/QUOTE]
Avatar was nominated for 9 and won 3. So if Avatar is fine, so's the MCU ;)
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697283]Are Fast and the Furious campaigning for Oscars and so on? At least when [I]Mad Max Fury Road[/I] did it (and got 6 Oscars) it was because it was the most beloved action movie of that year (and the decade).[/QUOTE]
See above
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697283]PTSD happens to any exposure of violence, and it certainly should for a 40 year old playboy who failed upwards into that cave with a box-of-scraps.[/QUOTE]
You know that there's no rule book to PTSD, right? And frankly, Tony's depiction was better than 90% of what we see in fiction, because he didn't go on a blood soaked rampage against those he deemed responsible.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4697283]The MCU don't have a serious and realistic attitude to violence, this is true for most superhero movies regardless of franchise and company. So that precludes it from the thematic heft that other great movies do...such as Godfather and Goodfellas which are about how terrible violence is and how it makes people who deal with it dehumanized more and more.[/QUOTE]
...yeah, I wouldn't call The Godfather as all that realistic. It's depiction of the mob, for example ([url]https://www.cracked.com/article_18966_5-styles-that-defined-entire-eras-were-made-up-by-movies.html[/url])
-
[QUOTE=The Cool Thatguy;4697215]Couple things...
First, I don't recall it being the job of superhero movies to reinvent movies. They're action movies with amazing actors and acting. And because we actually care about the protagonists, the action is that much more exciting.
.[/QUOTE]
Not every superhero movies are like this. Many superhero movies have shown to work more as drama equipped by action. The action first, story last movement is what Michael Bay brought to Cinema, shame that MCU not just jumped on that bandwaggon but ran further with it.
[QUOTE]
I don't recall anyone saying that MCU movies are the new Citizen Kane, or even Gattaca. It seems to be, more often than not, people want to be pissed about a franchise that can deliver a quality product on a reliable basis.[/QUOTE]
MCU is more of a manufactured product than a quality product. Usually in cinema people like Scorsese only define quality when they are more artistically put together. the quality of superhero films was a lot higher when there were no MCU movies. the films got to be made by different people who brought a different understanding in how to handle comic movies. the quality was richer then. now everything is formulaic and done the same way even DC for a while was trying to be marvel, this strips down the quality of a genre.
[QUOTE]
Whatever 'sins' against cinema the MCU has committed, movies like Fast and the Furious have done a hundred times worse.[/QUOTE]
Fast and the Furious and MCU are two sides of the same coin, although fast and the furious is a lot less over exposed and the media never pretended fast and the furious is amazing. fats and the furious is a franchise of ups and down, with MCU we are programmed to believe they have no flaws- it explains all their ''astounding'' reviews.
[QUOTE]
Second, what triggers PTSD is different for everyone. In high stress situations, not everyone is affected the same. And regardless, what happened in Avengers 1 was far different from his prior movies, rendering your point moot.More than that, it wasn't the exposure to a lovecraft creature that caused his PTSD, it was the fact that there was an army out there, headed to earth, that they barely stopped. We see Stark's fear about that in later movies, in Avengers 2, Civil War and discussed in Endgame.
Fear of an unknown enemy is something that's defined the modern era. So even if for some reason Tony's PTSD is required to be grounded in reality, well, there ya go.
[/QUOTE]
PTSD is all about how you write it. Disney did limit the writing of PTSD for Tony. they were scared making that a focused part of the movie was going to ruin the fun formula. Thor is supposed to be suffering from PTSD, but I think it is written more in a kid friendly manner. MCU never pushed any story telling boundaries for comics, there movies are even more basic than superman 1978, which I see as the official first Comic movie. This has been ignored because of the cinematic appeal. that is not good for cinema, many folks like Scorsese or perhaps an older crowd of cinema fans don't care much that these movies are connected.
-
I’ll bet Scorsese would love The Joker, and with a so-so RT score, no China and no 3D, but made over a billion dollars. Hopefully this is a sign that the audience is moving towards a more sophisticated comic book movie and moving away from this MCU cartoonish silliness.
-
I am glad the conversation has moved from the MCU films not being cinema to whether they are Oscar worthy.
-
[QUOTE=luprki;4698807]I’ll bet Scorsese would love The Joker, and with a so-so RT score, no China and no 3D, but made over a billion dollars. Hopefully this is a sign that the audience is moving towards a more sophisticated comic book movie and moving away from each this MCU cartoonish silliness.[/QUOTE]
He was originally involved with it, but backed off. The movie was interesting, it definitely borrowed from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy in terms of setting and some of the shots. But the character of Aurther Fleck was quite a bit different from those other leads.
-
[QUOTE=luprki;4698807]I’ll bet Scorsese would love The Joker, and with a so-so RT score, no China and no 3D, but made over a billion dollars. Hopefully this is a sign that the audience is moving towards a more sophisticated comic book movie and moving away from this MCU cartoonish silliness.[/QUOTE]
Scorsese said he didn't want to be involved with a movie where the character turns out to be a comicbook character. So....
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;4698840]I am glad the conversation has moved from the MCU films not being cinema to whether they are Oscar worthy.[/QUOTE]
The MCU is certainly Oscar worthy. It’s got the same middlebrow craft that such movies as King’s Speech and A beautiful mind and green book and other Oscar bait hack movies have.
The Oscars are a joke and have always been so. The MCU winning one won’t make it cinema either.
[QUOTE=Scott Taylor;4698969]He was originally involved with it, but backed off. The movie was interesting, it definitely borrowed from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy in terms of setting and some of the shots. But the character of Aurther Fleck was quite a bit different from those other leads.[/QUOTE]
Scorsese said in an interview that the problem for him was that ultimately he becomes Joker the Supervillain and he couldn’t relate to that. Joaquin Phoenix himself had issues during production about the ties to Batman Lore like characters being called Wayne. I think the idea that interested Scorsese and Phoenix was to do a story unconnected to DC and go a as real as could be take on Joker and have him be separate from his comics origins.
I think Scorsese got involved with Joker as a favour to WB in exchange for cash. To help the studio and Todd Philips gain publicity. It’s not unusual for name directors to passively attach themselves to a project they would not make or end up doing.
