Printable View
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708109]I saw this coming in one form or another, After Scorsese's marvel rants, I knew some who loved the MCU were not going to like The Irishman. RevolutionaryJack was comparing the Irishman to MCU movies and how it deals with themes of death and ageing. How does that measure up to Marvel movies? [/QUOTE]
Yeah...the next round of talking points is going to be an Irishman backlash which is typical.
[QUOTE=WebLurker;4708624]What does that even mean? (Maybe that was the wrong part to reference, given it's meant to be the sweeter part of the bittersweet ending. Try Peter Quill's eulogy if you want the part directly dealing with it.)
.[/QUOTE]
GOTG is all wrong. the direction was wrong from the start. regardless of how anyone wants to view the GOTG films, marvel made a fundamental mistake by making the franchise a kid-friendly comedy where nothing is meant to be taken seriously. I can't get back the flimsy concept of the films. Perhaps if Disney had made it more like a serious High stakes space adventure, the emotional angle will pack punch.
[QUOTE]
Yeah, Up is the last movie you want to invoke in this debate. Kinda funny that Up and Inside Out are the most colorful of the Pixar library and yet the most mature. Also funny how they know when to amp up the bright colors and when to tone them down (e.g. Russel taking about his family, Joy realizing her mistake in the Memory Dump, etc.).[/QUOTE]
scorsese is not attacking Pixar, no one attacks Pixar. Pixar does what they are meant to do. marvel should stop acting like pixar because they are not pixar. they are marvel.
[QUOTE]
Read and seen both. Can't argue with Logan being well done, but Death of Wolverine was not the best of anything. Yeah, I'll say it, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 handled death far better then Death of Wolverine, namely in building up to it, getting the emotions right, and having it actually mean something in the context of the story. (Did like Logan's last moment, but the story did not earn that moment.)[/QUOTE]
I don't see that with the death of wolverine and gotg 2. usually the comics are always better, Wolverine turning into admantum was more striking, disturbing and scar, that is why I find it better. i the other way I can tell death of wolverine was better is because it will never make it into an mcu movie. no way Disney would allow kids to watch that and usually marvel likes to reject the better stuff for their films. the death of wolverine is story scorsese would make well into films , if he tried. Scorsese would never touch GOTG.
[QUOTE]
Dunno, maybe Scorsese isn't worried about Pixar. Heck, for all I know, he knows that if he attacks Pixar, he'll get no mercy.[/QUOTE]
He is not worried about pixar, Pixar are not humanbeings.
[QUOTE]Actually, I'd argue it's one of the better installments.
[/QUOTE]
I do tend to get more data before I say anything, its more common that people say Antman is the weakest. although I don't see any difference between antman, avengers, captain marvel gotg, its all the same to me.
[QUOTE]Yeah, that's the point I stopped taking Scorsese seriously; I have literally seen the MCU convey those experiences he claims are lacking. That's what their Guardians movies are built on, for one. [/QUOTE]
A lot of people are taking him seriously, scorsese has a good point, he was being brutal but what he says sticks and if you look at marvel's past, it kind of adds up all the way back from Iron Man 2, after Mickey Rourke complained that his was disappointed with his performance in the final cut of the film. if marvel pushes story telling boundaries like Scorsese does in his film, there would be stronger performances in their movies. Raging Bull anyone.
I see where he is coming from. None of the marvel movies that I have seen genuinely challenged the way I view myself, the world, or movies. I never once doubted that the good guys were going to win or who the good guys were in any of them. But saying that they are all the same isn't fair. Tony Stark's emotional journey is not the same as Steve Roger's journey, or Bruce Banner's journey. More importantly, he is viewing cinema's past with rose colored glasses. During the Hollywood golden age, there were ground breaking pictures. But there were also tons of generic westerns and WWII movies. It used to be that the great cinematic franchises were James Bond and then later Indiana Jones and Star Wars. Those were all as formulaic as the Marvel Movies. So by Scorsese's standards they must not be cinema either.
[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4708716]Yeah...the next round of talking points is going to be an Irishman backlash which is typical.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, for some weird reason there is always an unnecessary backlash that goes nowhere you start trying to measure marvel movies against others films to highlight why scorsese is making sense. The Lord of the rings trilogy, Logan, Sam Raimi Spiderman and now the Irishman. I just find it sad because marvel should be learning from all these film. Scorsese had years to after comic movies and blockbusters, he didn't choose too until now. Doesn't that say something?
[QUOTE=Zorintien;4708800]. It used to be that the great cinematic franchises were James Bond and then later Indiana Jones and Star Wars. Those were all as formulaic as the Marvel Movies. So by Scorsese's standards they must not be cinema either.[/QUOTE]
These other franchises did strike a balance of being franchise and film making. marvel has no balance. a lot of comic book franchise from the past are more similar to James Bond and Indiana Jones. Marvel was another wave. it started with a cinematic concept which should never have gone further after avengers 2012 and things took a turn for the worst when it was bought by Disney and Disney just stripped away whatever was left of marvel's creative edge. I mean we are interchanging marvel and pixar, that tells me something is wrong?:eek:
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]GOTG is all wrong. the direction was wrong from the start. regardless of how anyone wants to view the GOTG films, marvel made a fundamental mistake by making the franchise a kid-friendly comedy where [B]nothing is meant to be taken seriously.[/B][/quote]
"Kid-friendly?" You remember the movies? They may be many things, but kid-friendly isn't one of them (profanity, crude humor, the proverbial thematic elements).
Also, "nothing is meant to be taken seriously?" The first movie started with a young boy loosing his mother to cancer, an event that is played for tragedy and drama, a la Magneto's origin in X1 (different tragedies, but still). Beyond that, that tragedy is carried through the movie as a serious plot point. All the core characters, as much as we may laugh at their antics, all are given backstories that are taken seriously and projected seriously. Like I remember posting before, it's just ironic that Cyclops had been in six movies to date and a talking raccoon is a more more rounded and developed character with only half the films.
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]I can't get back the flimsy concept of the films. Perhaps if Disney had made it more like a serious High stakes space adventure, the emotional angle will pack punch.[/quote]
Not sure I understand what you mean by "flimsy." Good acting, character work, explores some complex themes in the narrative that hold through. That's the stuff good movies are made of. And as far as emotional punch, that's like the series calling card. :confused:
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]scorsese is not attacking Pixar, no one attacks Pixar. Pixar does what they are meant to do. marvel should stop acting like pixar because they are not pixar. they are marvel.[/quote]
Uh... yeah?
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]I don't see that with the death of wolverine and gotg 2. usually the comics are always better...[/quote]
Depends, [I]Into the Spider-Verse[/I] did Miles far better then the source material. [I]Civil War[/I] the movie is better regarded then the event as well.
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]Wolverine turning into admantum was more striking, disturbing and scar, that is why I find it better.[/quote]
I'll take the better writing over the glitz myself. Look at it this way; both [I]Death of Wolverine[/I] and [I]Logan[/I] are about the clawed-one's last days, but the latter makes that a good story. There's an actual point to it all, a story arc for Logan, meaning to the death beyond "he died in the line of duty because that's what heroes do." I don't know if that makes any sense, but seriousness is just a "genre," if you will, not a mark of quality. (Heck, I would have to say that classic [I]Looney Tunes[/I] are better written then [I]Death of Wolverine[/I] in terms of construction and all that.)
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]the death of wolverine is story scorsese would make well into films , if he tried. Scorsese would never touch GOTG.[/quote]
So?
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]He is not worried about pixar, Pixar are not humanbeings.[/quote]
And yet there are these movies called [I]The Incredibles[/I] (two of them), [I]Up[/I], [I]Inside Out[/I], [I]Coco[/I], and [I]Soul[/I]. :confused:
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]I do tend to get more data before I say anything, its more common that people say Antman is the weakest. [B]although I don't see any difference between antman, avengers, captain marvel gotg, its all the same to me.[/B][/quote]
All I see are the differences.
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4708794]A lot of people are taking him seriously, scorsese has a good point, he was being brutal but what he says sticks and if you look at marvel's past, it kind of adds up all the way back from Iron Man 2, after Mickey Rourke complained that his was disappointed with his performance in the final cut of the film. if marvel pushes story telling boundaries like Scorsese does in his film, there would be stronger performances in their movies. Raging Bull anyone.[/QUOTE]
That was then. How about now? (Funny, though, if Marvel is the one needing to learn, how everyone is copying them.)