Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[Kirby101]

It's a different way of saying the same thing.



And again in the history of comics, people who worked in other genres saw themselves shut out by superhero stories. So historically those genres see superheroes as an invasive species in genre storytelling. It ruins the marketplace for other genres. So the arguments for other genres don't really work for superheroes because they don't have the same context they do.

If you read between the lines, what Scorsese is saying i.e stories have no risk nor do you have real emotional impact is that he thinks they aren't cinema because superhero characters are largely static, rarely grow and change, nor do big stake stories affect status-quo or consequences really last meaningfully. Rare exceptions aside (usually non-canon ones like Logan) that is true for modern shared universe franchise stories.

IN Norse Myth, Ragnarok was the literal end of everything. In MCU, Ragnarok is some janky jokey buddy comedy. The fact that the Norse Myth of Ragnarok is fantasy as much as the MCU's take doesn't mean the two things have anything in common.

But I disagree that there was no character devlopement or fatal consequences in the MCU. There certainly was in Endgame. Why is the MCU any different from James Bond or the Indiana Jones movies or Harryhausen's Sinbad movies.

And Odin dies in Ragnorok and Asgard is destroyed.

I also find the fear that Superhero movies will dominate film the way they have comics meritless.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Why is the MCU any different from James Bond or the Indiana Jones movies. A

James Bond and Indiana Jones didn't make it hard to impossible for him to make movies. Both are action movies about people without powers, your basic macho male fantasies about white imperialism. Scorsese probably won't go to bat for them all things considered.

And Odin dies in Ragnorok and Asgard is destroyed.

Until a next reboot somewhere down the line where it comes back and so on. As it is there's a Loki TV Show. Sure it's an alternate universe Loki and blah-blah-freaking-blah but that still dilutes the overall impact.

I also find the fear that Superhero movies will dominate film the way they have comics meritless.

Well for a lot of people think it's a cause for concern. IF superheroes won't go the way of the western and will continue to dominate the way they are now and suck up the mainstream movie audience I don't know how you can see that and not think that's the writing on the wall.

Neil Gaiman himself said that what Scorsese is talking about is the argument he and others used in the '80s when they tried, with great effort, to create the graphic novel market which was still a tiny gain all things considered. In pre-release interviews with Watchmen, Alan Moore hinted that he hoped that Watchmen would mark a start for mainstream comics to be open to alternative stuff and not be totally dominated by superheroes. When DC stiffed him, he realized that wouldn't happen and that's part of the reason why Moore is so bitter.

[thwhtGuardian]

Fantasy is a huge broad term and that includes stuff like The Wizard of Oz, The Thief of Bagdad (1940), Terry Gilliam movies and a host of stuff that Scorsese is a huge fan of.

Scorsese isn't against the idea of fantasy and so on. He just doesn't like superheroes.

And again I don't know why this is a hard concept for people to grasp. Superheroes as a genre have historically always swallowed and bought out and shut down other genres. The idea that some people have that superheroes are analogous to crime genres and other genres looked down upon has no historical grounding and for anyone schooled in comics, it would be pretty disingenuous to make when you think of the reality of creator's rights and attempts by people to make non-superhero stuff marketable which again is basically an attempt to restore a status-quo.

The default used to be EC Comics, Donald Duck Comics and Little Lulu and other stuff - war comics, horror comics, adventure comics, freaking Classics Illustrated. Neil Gaiman freaking won an award for fantasy for writing The Sandman but he also said clearly that he isn't keen on writing a monthly superhero ongoing and he doesn't really like the conventional superhero stuff. Warren Ellis likewise, he has said that all his Marvel stuff is to pay the bills. Kieron Gillen ditto. Garth Ennis likewise. Alan Moore would freaking do actual prostitution before he writes for mainstream comics again.

You can be a fan of genres like war stories (Garth Ennis), fantasy stories (Gaiman), horror and other stuff (Alan Moore), and not be a fan of superheroes. You can also be a fan of superhero comics and not be a fan of superhero movies such as the novelist Jonathan Lethem. Scorsese likes every genre of cinema, movies from every country, every type but he doesn't like superheroes pure and simple. There's nothing exceptional about that.



For a dude in his seventies after 5 decades of defining movies, I'd think he'd have a right to see it as a comedown. Especially since he speaks often and always about other young film-makers who don't even get a shot.



Yes he has had. He talks about a lot of unmade movies. Scorsese has had it better than others for sure, but it's not like he's had a royal run of the place either.

If the option is traditional studious don't fund the film and it doesn't get made or a streaming platform decides to give you the green light and you get to make your film I just don't see it as a come down, and if he's being honest with himself I don't think he would either.

[thwhtGuardian]

It's a different way of saying the same thing.



And again in the history of comics, people who worked in other genres saw themselves shut out by superhero stories. So historically those genres see superheroes as an invasive species in genre storytelling. It ruins the marketplace for other genres. So the arguments for other genres don't really work for superheroes because they don't have the same context they do.

If you read between the lines, what Scorsese is saying i.e stories have no risk nor do you have real emotional impact is that he thinks they aren't cinema because superhero characters are largely static, rarely grow and change, nor do big stake stories affect status-quo or consequences really last meaningfully. Rare exceptions aside (usually non-canon ones like Logan) that is true for modern shared universe franchise stories. In superhero stories, comics and movies, the main superhero character rarely changes and develops much. There's little depth.

IN Norse Myth, Ragnarok was the literal end of everything. In MCU, Ragnarok is some janky jokey buddy comedy. The fact that the Norse Myth of Ragnarok is fantasy as much as the MCU's take doesn't mean the two things have anything in common.

The arguments for superheroes "ruining" comics don't carry over to film though for the simple reason that film isn't a niche product or in danger of becoming a niche. That's why tights dominate the US marketplace, because the market shrank to the point where capes were the only profitable genre so that became the default but that's not happening to film. Sure, the entertainment market place is competitive with TV, gaming and streaming taking up a larger portion of people's entertainment dollars but film isn't shrinking to the extent that comics did.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

If the option is traditional studious don't fund the film and it doesn't get made or a streaming platform decides to give you the green light and you get to make your film I just don't see it as a come down, and if he's being honest with himself I don't think he would either.

There are some movies that will always be hard to sell and hard to fund. Scorsese's previous movie Silence or Last Temptation of Christ for instance. But The Irishman isn't that kind of movie. This kind of movie is mainstream, it's marketable, it's accessible and so on. A decade ago it would not have been a problem. A decade ago it would not have been freaking art house.

And ultimately now that you have Disney Plus and the Streaming Wars and the bloodsport of each company's algorithm trying to kill the other, how long before you have Netflix and others not supporting this kind of stuff? Already Netflix is axing shows and other stuff which they earlier supported. The creator of Bojack Horseman pointed this out. https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ojack-horseman

Will Netflix support a project like this in the future? Probably not.

The arguments for superheroes "ruining" comics don't carry over to film though for the simple reason that film isn't a niche product or in danger of becoming a niche. That's why tights dominate the US marketplace, because the market shrank to the point where capes were the only profitable genre so that became the default but that's not happening to film. Sure, the entertainment market place is competitive with TV, gaming and streaming taking up a larger portion of people's entertainment dollars but film isn't shrinking to the extent that comics did.

The kind of movies that used to be mainstream are outside the mainstream now and they tend to occupy the genres that correspond to the stuff in comics put to pasture before.

[Farealmer]

On the Scorsese side you have people saying superheroes are done for and others saying things that aren't superheroes are done for. Which is it?

[Beaddle]

I found time to read Feige's response, very hollow does not intellectualy address scorsese's comments. I think its time Feige gets honest and tells us what really goes on at marvel. We all know he is only powerful on paper not in the film making process. A man like him cant claim to be a comic book fan and be responsible for what we see now at marvel.

Even still, It’s his opinion. Why do people care so much about his opinion?

His Opinions carries a lot of weight.

Everybody is not going to like the MCU. Why people can’t accept that fact is beyond me.

there has been the media spin to force us to like MCU. Some in the media do get shocked when they discover not everybody loves it.

[WebLurker]

we already know to expect , it is not as if Disney won't use the marvel formula , you yourself have already said it that because marvel is very successful nothing will change, what we have now is a ticking clock waiting to say, I told you so.

You do you, but right now, I think it's poor odds betting against the company that got people to care immensely for a talking tree and a raccoon, if that makes any sense.

I think you should, but its obvious neither will appreciate another soulless product marvel movie in a franchise they once help build. its only natural they feel that way.

James Mangold did direct The Wolverine and wasn't he considering directing a Star Wars movie? Just saying.... (Either way, will be interesting to hear what they have to say when the movie is made.)

And I think this is marvel's problem, they won't change because they think they will keep making money but what they don't realize is their artistic venture is suffering severely.

there is more truth to fans hate Disney star wars or fans hate Disney marvel.

How do you figure?

I just think general fans are now raging against this big cooperate machine.

And yet those movies bank big at the box office, meaning that lots of people go to see them time after time, which is very interesting if most people don't like them.

What I have noticed here is that many people who are very critical of MCU movies seem to always talk or know more about the comics than the people who are far less critical.

My own observations are that the complaints are more along the lines of "they changed that from the comics" then the actual craftsmanship of the film in question, but you know what they say about anecdotal evidence.

one of the other problems with marvel movies is because their movies are so immature, Disney make overed and cookie cutter, kids are likely to grow out of it.

Time will tell, although I'm not so sure about the immature part (e.g. the movies with the tree and raccoon).

it is also very hard to even call any mcu movie a classic or a comic book classic because there are just so many of them that have been so massively produced and similarly manufactured together. you can't call avengers a classic but not Dr strange? but you can call spiderman 2 a classic but not amazing spiderman 2 because their is a huge artistic difference there.

I don't get it, to be honest.

spiderman 2 is not part of the mcu so it helps it status as a legit directed written movie in the genre.

That doesn't make sense.

Blade of cult status is a bigger classic in the superhero genre than all the entire mcu movies combined, just for the stand alone uniqueness to itself and it having no connection to Disney MCU movies and I am sure not many kids or teens have ever seen blade.

Never saw Blade, so I can't comment (although I'm under the impression that it didn't have as much staying power as other superhero movies of that era?).

I have seen some ask why didn't scorsese go after star wars? well there was no need too. Once upon a time comic movies were like star wars, this was before the cinematic universes and a company like Disney ruining both marvel and star wars

Once again Chadwick is still ignorant.

[CliffHanger2]

The kind of movies that used to be mainstream are outside the mainstream now and they tend to occupy the genres that correspond to the stuff in comics put to pasture before.

Like what? R-rated action movies, sci-fi,comedies or westerns? Those types of movies were being put out to pasture long before the MCU.

On the Iron Man post that you made saying he had no regrets or didn't sacrifice or pay for anything he did. You obviously missed a lot of movies lol He went 3 movies dealing with regret, his own impending death and loss. He basically lost everything at the end of his character arc. Now you can say "Well they'll just bring him back"or whatever. but I doubt it.

[Beaddle]

https://www.cbr.com/logan-james-mang...orsese-marvel/

Mngold agrees with most of scorsese's comments. go figure. he also talks about the 100% creative freedom he had for logan. this is why I have never trusted Feige or bought into the spin he is the anointed one for comic fans.


If feige really had creative freedom, marvel won't be the way it is.

[LordMikel]

I have to wonder if he isn't simply jealous. According to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...se_filmography

"According to Box Office Mojo, Scorsese's 24 feature films have earned a lifetime gross of over $1.9 billion. "

Avenger's Endgame. https://www.vox.com/2019/7/22/207034...ime-box-office
2.79 Billion.

So what was his excuse before. Raging Bull was hurt by Christopher Reeve's Superman? Goodfellas was hurt by ... hey there were no Superhero movies out that year.

[Totoro Man]

On the Scorsese side you have people saying superheroes are done for and others saying things that aren't superheroes are done for. Which is it?

neither. I mean, the Western and Gangster film genres haven't disappeared... and superheroes will never disappear at this point either. it's just a matter of relative prominence and popularity. (and if we get 'meta' and 'cross-cultural'... supers have been around for thousands of years anyway)

ah.... LOL, I see that I was tired in my earlier post... and wrote "Godfather"! obviously Scorsese didn't make that film.

I dunno… what I read from Scorsese was kinda irritating. I mean, yeah, I get that he has this grand cinematic legacy, tons of prestige, and what-not in the realm of film-making... but does that mean I'm just going to read him condescend, snivel, and wring his hands about the choices made by the film-viewing public at large and then change my movie watching habits accordingly? LOL. nope.

it's like he's trying to tell me that a Volkswagen Rabbit isn't a car because it's not a Duesenberg phaeton. sure, one car is considerably less prestigious, mass produced, and cheaper and easier to obtain than the other... but, at the end of the day, they're both still friggin cars! it's just a matter of availability, distribution, market share, prestige, and all that other blah blah blah

the aggravating thing is that people viciously employ double standards when talking about this sort of thing... you can have people complain that there's no character development in the MCU and that they can't keep track of everything in a superhero movie... but then they can remember utterly obscure details and callbacks from season one of a 'prestige TV show' when they watch an episode from season five! seriously? you can remember something from a TV show episode six years ago but can't remember details from a movie that happened two years ago in a previous film? for me, it's the exact scenario that MCU fans get when they're watching these films. the only difference is whether people are invested in the characters and narratives or not. in both cases the viewer is expected to be knowledgeable and attentive towards things that had happened previously in the narrative continuity.

I enjoyed the MCU because I'm not a big fan of Marvel comics as a whole. on the flip side... I hated "the Amazing Spiderman" films because I felt like they diverged too far from the comics while slavishly clinging to certain narrative set pieces... and that they were badly written stories. granted, I thought casting Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy worked out amazingly well. but I felt like Spiderman, in those films, was written with a 'Bruce Wayne' origin. he was motivated by anger, a sense of injustice and loss, and wanting vengeance. and for me, the tASM films miss the essential character of Spiderman. Spiderman, IMO, should be motivated by a profound sense of guilt, irrecoverable loss, and moral obligation... I felt like "Enter the Spiderverse" did a much better job of capturing that idea with Miles Morales.

it's fine if people make changes to the source material, within the context of the new work, where it makes sense. the revised version of Gwen Stacy made sense in the context of the film. the new plot machinations employed in MCU's "Civil War" probably work as well as they do because they blatantly ignored the source material a bit.

eh, at the end of the day, I'm inclined to think that the market is big enough, and robust enough, that there is a place for both the MCU films and the high-concept cinema that Scorsese loves.

[Totoro Man]

I have to wonder if he isn't simply jealous. According to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...se_filmography

"According to Box Office Mojo, Scorsese's 24 feature films have earned a lifetime gross of over $1.9 billion. "

Avenger's Endgame. https://www.vox.com/2019/7/22/207034...ime-box-office
2.79 Billion.

So what was his excuse before. Raging Bull was hurt by Christopher Reeve's Superman? Goodfellas was hurt by ... hey there were no Superhero movies out that year.

haha, yes, obviously he's jealous.

I mean, I love "Heart of Darkness" and "the Metamorphosis".... but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that more people have read the "Harry Potter" or "Twilight" books. I just accept that fact and move on.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

On the Iron Man post that you made saying he had no regrets or didn't sacrifice or pay for anything he did.

Did Tony Stark face consequences when he converted his company from manufacturing arms to peacetime use? Did his stock drop, was he forced to downsize his company and fire people? Was Stark Industries a company that suffer in a significant way for that? No it didn't. Tony Stark made Spider-Man's life a living hell thanks to the fact that two people he screwed over Vulture and Mysterio f--ked Peter's life, and still Peter kisses the ground Tony walks on. In the end he gets a beautiful death and total validation of his life choices.

Scorsese's movies are all about society that doesn't reward good and altruistic behavior, where if you do act morally and so on, you pay some kind of price for doing so. That attitude speaks to reality moreso than the imaginary 40 year old ******* arms dealer will somehow redeem himself and after sitting on his ass for 20 years building weapons will just crap out revolutionary tech in a cave with a box-of-scraps.

And again...answer this basic question, is Captain America The First Avenger a better World War II movie than Casablanca, than Saving Private Ryan, The Best Years of Our Lives? The later movies are about flawed vulnerable and human people giving their all in fighting a brutal industrial war that can shred their limbs and bodies like nothing else, Casablanca is a really adult love story in the middle of wartime, as opposed to Chris Evans being the least convincing virgin ever.

Now you can say "Well they'll just bring him back"or whatever. but I doubt it.

Eventually Tony Stark Iron Man will return with a young actor in place. Either it will be some dimensional shenanigans, some Secret Wars style reality shuffle, House of M warp. A backup AI Tony installed which digitized his consciousness.

Avenger's Endgame. https://www.vox.com/2019/7/22/207034...ime-box-office
2.79 Billion.

Adjusted for inflation it will be impressive still but not greatly so.

So what was his excuse before.

What's your excuse? Because if you judge people based on how much or how little they earn then that reflects on you. Rest assured Martin Scorsese is richer than all posters put together here. And he earned that money largely on his own hard work and merit as opposed to Bob Iger who worked for a corporation and whose work involved buying and gobbling up IP by other studios. I don't get why people live vicariously on Disney's success. At the end of the day Disney isn't making any of its fans rich.

Goodfellas was hurt by ... hey there were no Superhero movies out that year.

Goodfellas was actually a commercial success.

[WebLurker]

Did Tony Stark face consequences when he converted his company from manufacturing arms to peacetime use? Did his stock drop, was he forced to downsize his company and fire people? Was Stark Industries a company that suffer in a significant way for that? No it didn't. Tony Stark made Spider-Man's life a living hell thanks to the fact that two people he screwed over Vulture and Mysterio f--ked Peter's life, and still Peter kisses the ground Tony walks on. In the end he gets a beautiful death and total validation of his life choices.

Did Tony face consequences for blowing off Adrich Killian? For building Ultron? For his part in splitting the Avengers? For choosing to go on the time heist and fix things "whatever it took?"

"Nobody can live up to Tony. Not even Tony. Tony was my best friend. And he was a mess. He second-guessed everything he did, he was all over the place. The one thing he did that he didn't second-guess was picking you." - Spider-Man: Far From Home