Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[CliffHanger2]

In the sense of George Bailey from It's A Wonderful Life being more relatable as a figure than RDJ's Tony Stark.



Being relatable doesn't correlate to being commercially successful nor is anything being successful means it's relatable.

Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 80s and 90s was a mega-successful movie star but he definitely wasn't someone you related to.



Actually my favorite IM movie, pity it didn't do much favors for Shane Black. His vastly superior The Nice Guys failed.



At which point one needs to ask what exactly is a superhero story as a genre? Is it just folks in costumes punching each other and having powers and the external stuff like the background setting and so on doesn't matter? Because if you say the content/background/setting don't matter and all that matters is the costumes and whizzes and bangs, then that's the definition of a theme park and not a movie.



Yes.



If you take ancient greek epics, all people do is face consequences in those stories. They happen to be foundation for western tragedies and comedies and much contemporary storytelling. Hercules, greatest hero of Ancient Greece went nuts and killed his wife and children and was punished to do 12 labors and at the end of his life, got killed by his second wife Deianera. Shakespeare popular playwright or Cervantes who wrote Don Quixote likewise showed that there are consequences for actions and so on.

Nah commercial success definitely corresponds to relatability. There's a lot of stuff I don't like and think is garbage but it's definitely relatable to to other ppl. Ppl can connect to fantasy characters on a different level than they would realistic characters. And every "realistic" character isn't relatable either depends on the person.

It's not that background doesn't matter it just might matter less in a superhero movie. That's not something particular to superhero movies either. The background setting is always that -in the background. And some movies are more character based where the background isn't that important. Are those movies not cinema?

Ancient Greek epics okay. In some myths Hercules forms the milky way by drinking from Hera's breast, ah the consequences of drinking breast milk.. In earlier versions he's ordered by Zeus not a king to do the labors and they have nothing to do with redemption. So yeah he dies but is reborn as a god. He gets brought back does that invalidate all the consequences he faced? No. But even still MCU chars do face "real world" consequences they just aren't the ones you deem acceptable.

You mentioned Crumb too. Do his char always face real life consequences for their actions? Nope. So by your standard his stuff isn't art either.

[luprki]

Is that the only reason why u think Scorsese is wrong. mcu is the highest grossing franchise. Who are the most successful reality TV stars.

Kevin Fiege is no James Mangold, who could look at the issues with The Wolverine and fight for 100% creative Freedom for Logan. Feige is more than happy to sit there and reuse the Disney formula with no questions. it is this type of gullible behaviour and that wrecked mcu place in serious cinema and made mcu become more of a product.

I have to disagree, it not gullible behavior. Unlike Scorsese, Feige is an employee of the studio and he will do what the Evil Mouse wants. The Evil Mouse only cares about making money, not creativity. The Evil Mouse will not let Feige make a movie that doesn’t fit their tight formula. One thing I love about the WB and the old Fox is their superhero franchises are not formulated.

[XPac]

Wow! First, we have MCU fans bashing Scorcese, talking about how jealous he is and such bs, then we have MCU bashers and/or Scorcese fans trying to gatekeep what art or cinema is. This thread is a bloody disaster.

Now, I'm by no means a fan of Scorcese, as a director or as a person, but even I have to admit, the guy is a genius. He's definitely not jealous of Marvel movies. And, quite honestly, there is no need to get so offended by his comments.

As for MCU, it most certainly is an art and cinema. Whether it's good art or not is your subjective opinion, but it can't be denied it's art, whether it's made for money or not. I'm a vampire geek, so I hate Twilight, with passion, but I can't deny it's literature. I think it's bad literature, but it's literature. No one can say what is or isn't art based on their like/dislike of something. But, as I said, whether it's good art or bad art is up to you.

And that's why Scorcese is flat out wrong.

If he said it was bad cinema, we can simply choose to respect his opinion (agree with it or not) and move on. But saying it's NOT cinama if factually incorrect. It may be cinema he doesn't like, but it's obviously still cinema.

[Ozymandias]

At which point one needs to ask what exactly is a superhero story as a genre? Is it just folks in costumes punching each other and having powers and the external stuff like the background setting and so on doesn't matter?

I would say that the "external stuff" doesn't define a genre. That said, powers aren't required, neither are costumes (merely an aesthetic touch) or secret identities. For example, Brad Pitt's interpretation of Achilles, looks like a superhero to me. He does things that seem impossible, although he's not breaking the laws of physics. Having powers obviously makes it more recognizable, but it's not an essential characteristic to the genre; famous superheroes do well without powers. The problem comes when you strip the character of both non-essential traits and place it in a contemporary setting. I can't imagine a vigilante having a successful and long career without (at the very least) a mask. Is that equivalent to a secret identity? Probably, but as I said, without powers or the option to hide from the authorities, jail would be the only realistic outcome.

What's essential? The science-fiction side of any superhero story, which is why I don't expect ever to wake up one day and hear, in the news, of a real life one. If the story you're watching of reading doesn't look like it can happen it real life, it's science-fiction.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I would say that the "external stuff" doesn't define a genre.

In the hard real production design sense though, it absolutely does. For instance Logan was inspired by Westerns for sure. But if you make an actual western you need costumes, you need wide exteriors, you need horses for riding, you need stuntmen, you need guns that look old-timey enough. Unforgiven is a legit Western as is Shane, Logan is a superhero movie inspired by them but not one itself.

Captain America First Avenger is absolutely a World War II film, just as Wonder Woman is a World War I movie because they went out of their way to include a lot of period detail and stuff. So you can absolutely wonder and ask if those movies work as war movies the way other war movies do.

For example, Brad Pitt's interpretation of Achilles, looks like a superhero to me.

But he isn't. He doesn't have an A on his chest and he's not a do-gooder, he's in fact a war criminal in Troy. Actual Greek heroes were not intended to be good guys, they were protagonists who had the favor of gods and were "interesting" characters certainly but not someone you are supposed to see as a good person. In superhero stories, we are supposed to admire these heroic characters.

[GozertheGozarian]

There is good art: The Dark Knight, The Joker, X-Men 1&2, pre-Disney MCU
There is bad art: Batman and Robin, Green Lantern, Dark Phoenix
There is no art: Disney/MCU

Oh, you're serious. Let me laugh harder.

[Scott Taylor]

RDJ's career recovered with Iron Man but it also seems to have stopped him making non-Iron Man movies. And his presence hasn't helped movies like Dr. Dolittle which was dumped in January after a terrible production. Actors like Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio are among the last holdouts of stars who sell movies by themselves and both of them continue doing diverse and interesting movies with Hanks making some of his best movies in this decade stuff like Bridge of Spies, The Post, and Sully.

That Dr. Doolittle movie looked sooooooooooo bad. They are trying their level best to make it succeed, but man this looks to be destined for some serious mockery and failure.

[Ozymandias]

In the hard real production design sense though, it absolutely does. For instance Logan was inspired by Westerns for sure. But if you make an actual western you need costumes, you need wide exteriors, you need horses for riding, you need stuntmen, you need guns that look old-timey enough. Unforgiven is a legit Western as is Shane, Logan is a superhero movie inspired by them but not one itself.

Captain America First Avenger is absolutely a World War II film, just as Wonder Woman is a World War I movie because they went out of their way to include a lot of period detail and stuff. So you can absolutely wonder and ask if those movies work as war movies the way other war movies do.

When you mix genres, it becomes complicated to say that one of them has the upper hand. In Logan's case there's little doubt that it's a superhero movie, but so are CA and WW, because the characters do impossible things. If you define the genre in some other way, they may fall outside those parameters. In any case, you can absolutely compare the war elements in CA and WW, with those of war movies, even if you consider them superhero films.

But he isn't. He doesn't have an A on his chest and he's not a do-gooder, he's in fact a war criminal in Troy. Actual Greek heroes were not intended to be good guys, they were protagonists who had the favor of gods and were "interesting" characters certainly but not someone you are supposed to see as a good person. In superhero stories, we are supposed to admire these heroic characters.

In the Odyssey, if there's someone who could be considered a "war criminal", it would be Ulysses. The others were Greek heroes, which doesn't equate to "good guys", but I don't see a problem with that. Was The Comedian a superhero or a supervillain? He certainly wasn't a good guy.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

In any case, you can absolutely compare the war elements in CA and WW, with those of war movies, even if you consider them superhero films.

Agreed.

Was The Comedian a superhero or a supervillain? He certainly wasn't a good guy.

In Watchmen none of the costumed characters are purely good guys or moral figures. That's the point, Moore was quite insistent that if superheroes exist in real life, and so subject to the dimensions of history and social changes, they would never really be able to be pure good guys. If Superheroes are mainstream respectable figures in the '30s that means they would have to reflect and subscribe to mainstream values of '30s America which means white supremacy, homophobia and sexism in the manner that many Golden Age superhero comics of the '30s to '50s including Batman and Superman are filled with that kind of stuff. In real life corporate dictates mean those stuff is retconned and removed. But Moore gives no one a pass. Rorschach is likewise a right-wing conspiracy nut and Objectivist loon who openly subscribes to right wing rags like New Frontiersman (basically Proto-Breitbart).

That Dr. Doolittle movie looked sooooooooooo bad. They are trying their level best to make it succeed, but man this looks to be destined for some serious mockery and failure.

Well maybe it will surprise us who knows? But seriously Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor and initially everyone thought Iron Man would give him money to do some of the serious movie performances he's best known for, or his great character turns in comedy and drama, instead he's basically become full-time Iron Man. I mean it's his life and his choice and for an actor who worked solidly in movies that struggled to make even and who had serious drug problems, I am not gonna begrudge him for earning his bread and thinking of leaving an inheritance for his kids and so on. But I was hoping he'd continue making movies like Zodiac or work with Paul Thomas Anderson or other top directors.

The idea about superhero movies used to be that this would be a gig you make retirement pay on and then make the real movies you care about without worrying about the future. Jack Nicholson made BATMAN and played Joker, and scored huge on that, even getting stuff off merchandise and after that he did stuff like As Good as it Gets, About Schmidt, A Few Good Men, Anger Management, The Bucket List, The Departed. Now it's basically becoming a full time career thing. And that sucks up talent. Sam Raimi's career as a director didn't improve from making Spider-Man you know.

[Scott Taylor]

The idea about superhero movies used to be that this would be a gig you make retirement pay on and then make the real movies you care about without worrying about the future. Jack Nicholson made BATMAN and played Joker, and scored huge on that, even getting stuff off merchandise and after that he did stuff like As Good as it Gets, About Schmidt, A Few Good Men, Anger Management, The Bucket List, The Departed. Now it's basically becoming a full time career thing. And that sucks up talent. Sam Raimi's career as a director didn't improve from making Spider-Man you know.

That all could be due to the gateway people have been referring to, as implied by Scorcese's comments. If you make superhero films, you lose some respect with the gatekeepers of what is ok and not ok in Hollywood for taking the "easy" route? Or it could just be getting typecast, as they say. Downey is so good at being Iron Man that people (me, for one) consider him the true face of the MCU. Thats a pretty big monkey on your back. In a way, Doolittle is an extension of the MCU idea because we are getting Tom Holland and RDJ as top-billed actors.

Stuff like this is why people like Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving left hero movies and why Anthony Hopkins has outright said he just did the Thor stuff for the money. I do wonder if RDJ may just be happy where he is at and is at peace with the whole thing, as you imply.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That all could be due to the gateway people have been referring to, as implied by Scorcese's comments. If you make superhero films, you lose some respect with the gatekeepers of what is ok and not ok in Hollywood for taking the "easy" route?

I don't think that's the case. In the case of Scorsese, he worked with Andrew Garfield, aka Spider-Man the Second of His Name, on his film Silence. Without Garfield that movie would not have been made since he was the biggest name in that movie at the time. And that movie was always going to be uncommercial and niche as opposed to The Irishman which is more or less a mainstream movie from a decade or so back. So if working on superheroes is "career suicide" then Garfield wouldn't have had a Scorsese movie on his resume. Likewise Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 1 did wonders for J. K. Simmons who started appearing in a lot of Coen Brothers movies. Willem Dafoe likewise became a more frequently appearing character actor than before and he's often a "name" actor that helps indie movies get made as in the case of The Florida Project. He's not a super-big star but he's big enough for smaller movies and that's thanks to Norman Osborn. Kirsten Dunst likewise did pretty well with Marie Antoinette and Melancholia and so on. Tobey Maguire not so much because I think he became more selective and so on, and his last big movie was playing a supporting lead in The Great Gatsby opposite real-life friend Leonardo DiCaprio. Franco has been erratic and weird which is on-brand.

Superhero movies aren't bad for established actors, i.e. actors and performers who have done say character work or quirky indie stuff before becoming starrers. It's bad if you are Christopher Reeve and get discovered with that role and so are defined by it. Or you know James Bond actors who aren't Sean Connery and Daniel Craig. The former managed to shake out of it while the latter had long done solid work from before. Or you know if you do character or villains turn in superhero movies like J. K. Simmons and Dafoe.

Stuff like this is why people like Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving left hero movies and why Anthony Hopkins has outright said he just did the Thor stuff for the money.

"Tony" Hopkins is actually a pretty chill guy and he says he does everything for money. So he's just being a big kidder there and Odin as a character is something he can do in his sleep, he finally got real stuff to do in Thor Ragnarok. Hugo Weaving wasn't treated well apparently on set, and Portman didn't like Patty Jenkins getting fired. Portman does do all kinds of arty stuff like making movies in Israel and so on.

I do wonder if RDJ may just be happy where he is at and is at peace with the whole thing, as you imply.

Probably yeah. But I do think it's a shame that a great actor like him has lost his drive for quality roles. I mean it's one thing for Daniel Day-Lewis to retire early but he retired on an all-time high, having a career without compromise and making one great performance and movie after another. Will we ever see the RDJ who gave us Tugg Speedman in Tropic Thunder or his really weird endearing sleazebag from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Still even in the MCU, Tony Stark has given RDJ many great acting moments...I am thinking especially that rant he gives at the start of Endgame where he just erupts in anger at Steve. That was great.

However, these movies are not beyond reproach. If these films are a cultural touchstone as their supporters claim, then criticism towards them is warranted in itself, which Scorsese, I and many others are doing.

Yeah.

[jetengine]

Its amazing we've got 22 pages out of an old man gatekeeping

[Killerbee911]

Its amazing we've got 22 pages out of an old man gatekeeping

Nah the old man gatekeeping just embolden some people to rehash some of their same bad arguments. Scorsese when say says Marvel he means ALL Superheroes movies (AND blockbuster movie culture like Fast Furious and Jurassic World) He doesn't know the difference between Justice League, X-men and Avengers. He is shitting on DC, Sony and Fox as well. People are happy to support him and his bad opinion because it feels like he is supporting their cause but the reality is they view all Superhero movies the same, Even the "good ones" like Logan and Dark Knight.

[Mister Mets]

I have to disagree, it not gullible behavior. Unlike Scorsese, Feige is an employee of the studio and he will do what the Evil Mouse wants. The Evil Mouse only cares about making money, not creativity. The Evil Mouse will not let Feige make a movie that doesn’t fit their tight formula. One thing I love about the WB and the old Fox is their superhero franchises are not formulated.

While Disney cares about making money, it is notable how good the MCU films have been. None of them have been rated rotten on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a better record than the DCEU, Sony or Fox. And it's probably one reason the movies make so much money. Feige's been pretty good at quality control.

You could make the case this is the result of Feige running the MCU more like a TV show with an unlimited production budget than a series of movies.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Its amazing we've got 22 pages out of an old man gatekeeping

"Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth, "rip down all hate, " I screamed
Lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull, I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers foundationed deep, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"
-- Bob Dylan, My Back Pages

Gatekeeper used to mean stuff like gamergate i.e. a bunch of obnoxious fans trying to say some people i.e female critics and developers do not have a right to express an opinion on a medium because they haven't played so-and-so games or do not know such-and-such lore. The idea that there are "true fans" and "casual" fans don't have a right to form an opinion.

By the original definition, MCU fans are being gatekeeper. Scorsese offers an outside view on their stuff, in very mild terms. And in response fans say he's got no right to say that, unless he is totally immersed in comics' lore and so on. The MCU fans are gatekeeping as to what is the right and best opinion and acceptable means of criticism.

You could make the case this is the result of Feige running the MCU more like a TV show with an unlimited production budget than a series of movies.

Well that's part of the problem that Scorsese is talking about. Someone on twitter pointed out the argument seems to be that Scorsese cannot have an opinion on the MCU based on the 1 or 2 movies he claims to have seen...he needs to have seen every single movie to judge. So in that respects it isn't cinema anymore. It's basically a kind of theme park where the individual films don't stand alone. The MCU movies are solid, consistent, and well put together but it's also quite samey i.e. in terms of humor, attitude to supporting cast, and overall plot beats. Scorsese said they are "sequels in name, remakes in spirit".

The MCU is the movie equivalent of the monthly comics. If you read Spider-Man now, and don't like the latest issues or the few you read and walk away no fan would make a fuss and gainsay that the reader in question is wrong to say he didn't like Spider-Man because it's not realistic to ask someone to read every Spider-Man run before making an informed opinion on the character.