Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[Mister Mets]

Have you seen the thor 4 love and thunder poster?


It has a theme park feel. Marvel should not be doing this type of posters. Not just is it ugly, its over the top and lacks realism. the same applies to their movies looking ugly.

Attachment 89432

The stylistic aspect of marvel looking the same is a result of the Disney formula, the directors they hire don't direct their movies. if you look at marvel movies of the past Spiderman, X-Men, Blade. they don't look the same, their tone is not the same either. again, where was Scorsese bashing marvel in the lates 90s and early 2000s?

The logo seems to be more heavy metal than theme park.



It also establishes a different mood than other Marvel films, which contradicts the idea that they're all cookie cutter.

[Mister Mets]

The Walt Disney Corporation will always be "the establishment" far more than Scorsese ever will be. Scorsese's movies are on par in terms of hits/flops so in terms of power dynamics, Disney/Marvel is in a position of power over him and other film-makers. The directors of the MCU whether it's James Gunn, or others, despite their youth now have a greater level of power than he does. And yeah that applies to Gunn even after Disney temporarily fired him. When Gunn got fired, he immediately got a huge gig and big pay for The Suicide Squad...when Scorsese as a young man was fired from The Honeymoon Killers he had to go through four years of "director jail" before he got his break.

Scorsese would be "the establishment" as an American mainstream film-maker to say a director out of film-school, or film-makers from other countries like Argentina, China and others who Scorsese at various times has helped. Just this year, he helped the director of The Current War (https://variety.com/2019/scene/news/...in-1203379557/), the Mexican born Alfonso Gomez-Remon regain final cut from Harvey Weinstein who tried to cut the film (because Weinstein likes to rape movies too). To them Scorsese has been a friendly establishment but that's only a small amount of power he has.



Well it's hard for there to be true real emotional stakes once you make it clear that no matter what the movies will keep churning, the setting will remain standing in such a way that nothing sticks and lasts. In that respects, the MCU is quite like the comic books. For anyone schooled in cinema which for the vast majority of history and the vast quantity of movies has always meant one-and-done standalone stuff whereby movies end with changes that last stick and are undone...this stuff would look jarring. As Scorsese said, "they are sequels in name but remakes in spirit". In that the story will always be wiped clean in the next movie or one after and start from scratch again.

When the MCU came out, it had a charm of seeing an approximation of comics continuity in live action and it was refreshing but now it looks like one of the advantages and virtues a superhero movie had which was a sense of definite resolution and change, is being removed. Look at Batman 1989 where Joker dies at the end, or Norman Osborn dying at the end of Spider-Man 1 or Ock in Spider-Man 2. Now you aren't going to get that since studios will want to do a Sinister Six movie or something eventually. So in that respects superhero movies went from cinematic takes on comics to becoming less and less cinematic.

Scorsese is certainly part of the critical establishment in cinema. I'm not sure Disney much power over him, since the majority of his films are R-rated. He worked primarily with Paramount and Warner Brothers.

The comparison with James Gunn doesn't quite fit. Scorsese was in a different position when he made the Honeymoon Killers. At that point, he had only made one feature film, which isn't remembered very fondly. It predated Boxcar Bertha and Mean Streets, the latter of which was his breakout. It makes sense that a fired nobody is going to have a tougher time getting work than a fired director of two blockbusters.

As for the idea that nothing lasts, that's not how the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been.

Iron Man 3 dealt with his trauma after what he saw in the Avengers. Civil War led to a rift between the heroes. They came together, but that occurred in a story where Tony died and Steve retired.

Far From Home did kill off the villain, although it had a much bigger ending than Spider-Man 2 in terms of changing the character.

[Powerboy]

Thank you.



Put it rather well, on the whole. This is mostly what Scorsese is decrying.



Right to exist? Absolutely they do. No one would say/should say they don't have a right to exist. Not even Scorsese is doing that.

Right to dominate? No they don't. Superhero movies don't have any "right" to dominate over other movies. And it would be very bad/disconcerning if a bunch of movies made for children, largely to sell toys, ends up displacing a much wider range of movies that existed before, including chasing movies that were formerly mainstream like Irishman into streaming. I mean this helps no one except one company owning the stuff to get richer and richer.

I was referring to "right" in the sense of people's right to see what they want to see and if they choose to go see these movies more than any others, that is their choice. Of course, we are not talking about some basic human right here where the will of the majority is not the all-important factor but about a choice in entertainment.

Granted we know who benefits financially from this. At least there are many new avenues such as streaming available now. However, I agree with you about a lot of things. Opening up some theater rooms to other movies instead of showing one movie in four out of eight rooms does not in any way prevent me or anyone else from seeing an MCU movie. You might have full rooms longer into a run instead of four rooms that are half full. From what little I have spoken to theater people, they have to show it in X number of rooms and for a certain amount of time, showings per day, etc. These are the rules to get the movie and they have to do it because they cannot afford to not show an MCU movie with the revenue it will pull in. I'm sure they also want movies that will make them the most money. Definitely these sorts of requirements to get an MCU movie "...helps no one except one company owning the stuff to get richer and richer."

[Powerboy]

Scorsese is certainly part of the critical establishment in cinema. I'm not sure Disney much power over him, since the majority of his films are R-rated. He worked primarily with Paramount and Warner Brothers.

The comparison with James Gunn doesn't quite fit. Scorsese was in a different position when he made the Honeymoon Killers. At that point, he had only made one feature film, which isn't remembered very fondly. It predated Boxcar Bertha and Mean Streets, the latter of which was his breakout. It makes sense that a fired nobody is going to have a tougher time getting work than a fired director of two blockbusters.

As for the idea that nothing lasts, that's not how the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been.

Iron Man 3 dealt with his trauma after what he saw in the Avengers. Civil War led to a rift between the heroes. They came together, but that occurred in a story where Tony died and Steve retired.

Far From Home did kill off the villain, although it had a much bigger ending than Spider-Man 2 in terms of changing the character.

I will say I really do not get the fan dislike of IM3 which really dealt with Stark's PTSD. He's from a world where technology we would call super tech exists and is "normal" or close to normal. But, suddenly, gods and aliens and alternate realities are real and it's too overwhelming. That was a totally realistic reaction. Then add the total break between IM and Cap which they never truly reconciled. They worked together because it was that or the world is destroyed and then Stark dies leaving a widow and a child and Cap becomes an old man who passes on the shield. It's not all happy happy joy joy or unchanging.

Oh I know someone will say, "They'll eventually reboot the whole thing". And the point is? Lots of movies get remade. That's a different story literally.

[Midvillian1322]

Thank you.



Put it rather well, on the whole. This is mostly what Scorsese is decrying.



Right to exist? Absolutely they do. No one would say/should say they don't have a right to exist. Not even Scorsese is doing that.

Right to dominate? No they don't. Superhero movies don't have any "right" to dominate over other movies. And it would be very bad/disconcerning if a bunch of movies made for children, largely to sell toys, ends up displacing a much wider range of movies that existed before, including chasing movies that were formerly mainstream like Irishman into streaming. I mean this helps no one except one company owning the stuff to get richer and richer.

These movies are very much Kid friendly but they arent made with Children in mind. They sell toys sure but 18-35 would be the biggest chunk of the audience if i had to guess.

Also your right they dont have a right to dominate but they also dont have an obligation to make room for other movies. If people want more they are gonna give them more. They announced more release dates and looks like starting in 2023 we are gonna be getting 4 movies a year plus all the Disney+ stuff. So there is no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

[Username taken]

These movies are very much Kid friendly but they arent made with Children in mind. They sell toys sure but 18-35 would be the biggest chunk of the audience if i had to guess.

Also your right they dont have a right to dominate but they also dont have an obligation to make room for other movies. If people want more they are gonna give them more. They announced more release dates and looks like starting in 2023 we are gonna be getting 4 movies a year plus all the Disney+ stuff. So there is no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Exactly.

It’s a competitive market space and everyone (the studios in this case) should fight their space.

The thing is, Marvel/Disney have simply proven to be better than studios in producing films that connect with audiences.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

These movies are very much Kid friendly but they arent made with Children in mind. They sell toys sure but 18-35 would be the biggest chunk of the audience if i had to guess.

The Marvel movies are famously bloodless and sexless, especially after they got bought out by Disney. There are about a couple of exceptions usually done as a above the line gag (Peter Quill's Jackson Pollock quip in GOTG-1) but that's really really tame. So I think it's right to say that these are essentially movies for children, or for the whole family or other euphemisms on that nature.

I think there's a consensus for everyone around here that there shouldn't just be one kind of movie in the cinemas. Movies for adults includes stuff like Get Out, anything by Quentin Tarantino, some of Spielberg's stuff, all of Scorsese's stuff (even his movie for kids like Hugo).

So there is no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Well then it's well past time that someone like Scorsese call them out, no? And address what the probable effects of a movie industry dominated by franchise movies with content for children could be on cinema at large?

My guess is that Scorsese like Spielberg thought that superheroes would be a fad and come and go, i.e. superhero fatigue. That was how it was in the 90s. The Batman movies came and went but it didn't turn everyone away. Then you had the Raimi and Nolan movies and it seemed like there would be a respite. Then the MCU came along and maybe people hoped that it would go the way of the western but for a variety of reasons it doesn't seem to be happening. And Scorsese, give him credit, clearly doesn't think it will go the way of the Western or the classic Musical, to name two big genres which died out and became rare/niche. He also thinks superheroes as a genre are of an entirely different nature than before. To me this is comparable to the comics where originally comics was wide open in terms of genres, content, and material you could allow for a mainstream audience. EC Comics stuff, Carl Barks stuff, Krazy Kat and so on. All of this was mainstream in the '50s. According to some estimates, Carl Barks' Uncle Scrooge comics was the biggest selling comic of the '50s, more than Superman.

If the idea of one genre of movie totally dominating the movie industry so that any alternative is shuffled to the margins or barely exists sounds alarmist to you. Take a look at the Indian movie industry, where Bollywood movies are totally dominated by big musical movies where you have bits of every genre told for the "whole family". Any other genre in movie industry is basically shuffled to some film festival for foreigners to see, documentaries are shown in a few classrooms, and rights' holders have so few resources that they can barely scrape together for a crappy DVD release. That's kind of what Marvel is, it's America's own Bollywood. And if that strikes you as a stretch, Garth Ennis and Alan Moore have compared the Comics' Industry where stuff from non-superhero genres are default considered "indie" to be very similar to Bollywood.

[Username taken]

To Scorcese’s point, he’s very much entitled to his own opinion and his words do carry weight given his status in the industry.

That being said, he’s made a bullshit point that’s basically been made over and over when certain kind of movies take over the cinemas. It happened in the 70s with Star Wars (we all know how hard it was for Lucas to even get funding for the first movie) and it’s just happening again. Francis Ford Coppola even called Marvel’s movies despicable, like seriously? Scorsese is suggesting that cinema should adhere to a certain set of rules which again is a bullshit point. From Adam Sandler farces to superhero movies to “serious dramas”, all movies could be considered cinema, some movies might be bad but that doesn’t make them not cinema. It comes dangerously close to the argument that “I don’t like this thing and it shouldn’t exist”.

Scorsese can say Marvel movies aren’t cinema but his own opinion isn’t an objective fact nor should it be treated as such. Scorsese should be more respectful and in fact appreciate what Marvel and their film makers have done considering the whole undertaking was a massive, colossal risk that could have even seen them lose ownership of their characters. Throwing your fellow colleagues under the bus because of “petty feelings” is just disgusting.

Iger and Feige were very respectful to him in their responses, if I were their shoes, I’d much more pointed in my response to Mr Scorsese.I would simply given them the “ok, boomer” response but unfortunately Scorsese and co are a little before the boomer generation.

[Username taken]

The Marvel movies are famously bloodless and sexless, especially after they got bought out by Disney. There are about a couple of exceptions usually done as a above the line gag (Peter Quill's Jackson Pollock quip in GOTG-1) but that's really really tame. So I think it's right to say that these are essentially movies for children, or for the whole family or other euphemisms on that nature.

I think there's a consensus for everyone around here that there shouldn't just be one kind of movie in the cinemas. Movies for adults includes stuff like Get Out, anything by Quentin Tarantino, some of Spielberg's stuff, all of Scorsese's stuff (even his movie for kids like Hugo).



Well then it's well past time that someone like Scorsese call them out, no? And address what the probable effects of a movie industry dominated by franchise movies with content for children could be on cinema at large?

My guess is that Scorsese like Spielberg thought that superheroes would be a fad and come and go, i.e. superhero fatigue. That was how it was in the 90s. The Batman movies came and went but it didn't turn everyone away. Then you had the Raimi and Nolan movies and it seemed like there would be a respite. Then the MCU came along and maybe people hoped that it would go the way of the western but for a variety of reasons it doesn't seem to be happening. And Scorsese, give him credit, clearly doesn't think it will go the way of the Western or the classic Musical, to name two big genres which died out and became rare/niche. He also thinks superheroes as a genre are of an entirely different nature than before. To me this is comparable to the comics where originally comics was wide open in terms of genres, content, and material you could allow for a mainstream audience. EC Comics stuff, Carl Barks stuff, Krazy Kat and so on. All of this was mainstream in the '50s. According to some estimates, Carl Barks' Uncle Scrooge comics was the biggest selling comic of the '50s, more than Superman.

If the idea of one genre of movie totally dominating the movie industry so that any alternative is shuffled to the margins or barely exists sounds alarmist to you. Take a look at the Indian movie industry, where Bollywood movies are totally dominated by big musical movies where you have bits of every genre told for the "whole family". Any other genre in movie industry is basically shuffled to some film festival for foreigners to see, documentaries are shown in a few classrooms, and rights' holders have so few resources that they can barely scrape together for a crappy DVD release. That's kind of what Marvel is, it's America's own Bollywood. And if that strikes you as a stretch, Garth Ennis and Alan Moore have compared the Comics' Industry where stuff from non-superhero genres are default considered "indie" to be very similar to Bollywood.

If Marvel’s movies are dominating to the extent they are, the other studios need to wake up and do better.

Mindlessly calling out Marvel won’t change anything whatsoever considering their movies are being well received by both audiences and critics.

[Midvillian1322]

The Marvel movies are famously bloodless and sexless, especially after they got bought out by Disney. There are about a couple of exceptions usually done as a above the line gag (Peter Quill's Jackson Pollock quip in GOTG-1) but that's really really tame. So I think it's right to say that these are essentially movies for children, or for the whole family or other euphemisms on that nature.

I think there's a consensus for everyone around here that there shouldn't just be one kind of movie in the cinemas. Movies for adults includes stuff like Get Out, anything by Quentin Tarantino, some of Spielberg's stuff, all of Scorsese's stuff (even his movie for kids like Hugo).



Well then it's well past time that someone like Scorsese call them out, no? And address what the probable effects of a movie industry dominated by franchise movies with content for children could be on cinema at large?

My guess is that Scorsese like Spielberg thought that superheroes would be a fad and come and go, i.e. superhero fatigue. That was how it was in the 90s. The Batman movies came and went but it didn't turn everyone away. Then you had the Raimi and Nolan movies and it seemed like there would be a respite. Then the MCU came along and maybe people hoped that it would go the way of the western but for a variety of reasons it doesn't seem to be happening. And Scorsese, give him credit, clearly doesn't think it will go the way of the Western or the classic Musical, to name two big genres which died out and became rare/niche. He also thinks superheroes as a genre are of an entirely different nature than before. To me this is comparable to the comics where originally comics was wide open in terms of genres, content, and material you could allow for a mainstream audience. EC Comics stuff, Carl Barks stuff, Krazy Kat and so on. All of this was mainstream in the '50s. According to some estimates, Carl Barks' Uncle Scrooge comics was the biggest selling comic of the '50s, more than Superman.

If the idea of one genre of movie totally dominating the movie industry so that any alternative is shuffled to the margins or barely exists sounds alarmist to you. Take a look at the Indian movie industry, where Bollywood movies are totally dominated by big musical movies where you have bits of every genre told for the "whole family". Any other genre in movie industry is basically shuffled to some film festival for foreigners to see, documentaries are shown in a few classrooms, and rights' holders have so few resources that they can barely scrape together for a crappy DVD release. That's kind of what Marvel is, it's America's own Bollywood. And if that strikes you as a stretch, Garth Ennis and Alan Moore have compared the Comics' Industry where stuff from non-superhero genres are default considered "indie" to be very similar to Bollywood.

Again they are kid friendly. But most of the themes of these movies arent aimed at kids. TWS isnt made with a kid in mind at all. And there has been more then one Decaptiation in these films. You dont have to show blood for a movie to be not made for Kids. There is a big different between being family friendly and being made for kids. These movies arent being written for children but they fall in a PG 13 format so kids can enjoy I too.

And if you make a movie people want you will get a big release. Anythint Jordan Peele does right now is gonna be big. Tarrentino is in the same boat. I dont know why Scorsese didnt get that treatment. Wolf of Wallstreet was a big hit I thought. But the problem is the audience not wanting to pay to see certain things in theaters.

[Powerboy]

The Marvel movies are famously bloodless and sexless, especially after they got bought out by Disney. There are about a couple of exceptions usually done as a above the line gag (Peter Quill's Jackson Pollock quip in GOTG-1) but that's really really tame. So I think it's right to say that these are essentially movies for children, or for the whole family or other euphemisms on that nature.

I think there's a consensus for everyone around here that there shouldn't just be one kind of movie in the cinemas. Movies for adults includes stuff like Get Out, anything by Quentin Tarantino, some of Spielberg's stuff, all of Scorsese's stuff (even his movie for kids like Hugo).



Well then it's well past time that someone like Scorsese call them out, no? And address what the probable effects of a movie industry dominated by franchise movies with content for children could be on cinema at large?

My guess is that Scorsese like Spielberg thought that superheroes would be a fad and come and go, i.e. superhero fatigue. That was how it was in the 90s. The Batman movies came and went but it didn't turn everyone away. Then you had the Raimi and Nolan movies and it seemed like there would be a respite. Then the MCU came along and maybe people hoped that it would go the way of the western but for a variety of reasons it doesn't seem to be happening. And Scorsese, give him credit, clearly doesn't think it will go the way of the Western or the classic Musical, to name two big genres which died out and became rare/niche. He also thinks superheroes as a genre are of an entirely different nature than before. To me this is comparable to the comics where originally comics was wide open in terms of genres, content, and material you could allow for a mainstream audience. EC Comics stuff, Carl Barks stuff, Krazy Kat and so on. All of this was mainstream in the '50s. According to some estimates, Carl Barks' Uncle Scrooge comics was the biggest selling comic of the '50s, more than Superman.

If the idea of one genre of movie totally dominating the movie industry so that any alternative is shuffled to the margins or barely exists sounds alarmist to you. Take a look at the Indian movie industry, where Bollywood movies are totally dominated by big musical movies where you have bits of every genre told for the "whole family". Any other genre in movie industry is basically shuffled to some film festival for foreigners to see, documentaries are shown in a few classrooms, and rights' holders have so few resources that they can barely scrape together for a crappy DVD release. That's kind of what Marvel is, it's America's own Bollywood. And if that strikes you as a stretch, Garth Ennis and Alan Moore have compared the Comics' Industry where stuff from non-superhero genres are default considered "indie" to be very similar to Bollywood.

The Western lasted for longer than superhero movies have lasted to date though even they were never as big as the superhero movie is now for a variety of reasons.

Some of the fading was certainly that the Western involved a fascination with our past albeit our mythical past more than the realities of the Old West. They were more or less replaced by the modern action movie with horses than run faster (vehicles) and guns that shoot faster. When you think about it, the Western just faded in favor of a genre that was in the present and could be flashier and faster which may have a lot to do with why the superhero movie has superseded other action movies. The same but more powerful.

I do think that while there was usually one genre in the past that was the biggest, the difference between that genre and other genres was not as marked as it is now and certainly a lot of the difference is not just the movies themselves but that the business side has altered to an extreme to profit as much as possible from the popularity of that genre.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Scorsese should be more respectful and in fact appreciate what Marvel and their film makers have done considering the whole undertaking was a massive, colossal risk that could have even seen them lose ownership of their characters.

"Lose ownership of their characters". Let's get real here. These characters were created by Stan Lee/Jack Kirby/Steve Ditko/Joe Simon as well as others (like Bill Mantlo who created Rocket Raccoon, Starlin who created Thanos, Stern who created Nebula and Hickman who created the Black Order). And historically the creators of these characters had their contributions grossly underpaid, abused, and exploited. There's the whole Marvel Method thing where Kirby and Ditko essentially co-wrote those stories but didn't get credited/paid as writers, leave alone reap rewards from the merchandising and so on. Fundamentally speaking these characters do not belong to Bob Iger, Kevin Feige, James Gunn or any film-maker/screenwriter of the MCU.

Was it a risk to make the Marvel movies? Well yeah anything's at risk but at the end of the day they are making movies from IP created by people who won't make half as much for these movies and other products as they should. Artistically speaking, it's a bigger risk for film-makers like Scorsese to do a movie like Mean Streets whose screenplay he co-wrote and featured characters he created and invented. Same applies to Quentin Tarantino an Spike Lee and other film-makers. And of course over and above all, let's not forget that these characters are under the stewardship of Disney who have bullied legislators repeatedly to ensure their IP don't fall into public domain even when Mickey Mouse and others should have fallen in a long time ago. The success of these movies merely continue to consolidate the ill-gotten gains of Marvel and Disney corporate and if anything validate them. Heck that's probably why Far From Home has for its villain a guy who had his invention stolen without credit by Tony Stark and the movie goes out of its way to glorify Stark, more or less saying, "See he was right to screw over people".

I mean as bad as Marvel has been about writers and artists, Disney's history is actually worse in terms of Donald Duck comics where Don Rosa one of the most influential comics' writers has to work two jobs despite the fact that his work is being mined for the current Duck Tales 2017 cartoon.

Iger and Feige were very respectful to him in their responses, if I were their shoes, I’d much more pointed in my response to Mr Scorsese.I would simply given them the “ok, boomer” response but unfortunately Scorsese and co are a little before the boomer generation.

Robert Iger was born in 1952, Kevin Feige was born in 1973. Iger is literally a boomer, Feige is second or third generation boomer maybe Gen X. So it would look pretty stupid for them to use that, and also pretty dumb for comics' fans to try and use them as edgy teen rebels.

From Scorsese's perspective, he's the hippy who always fought the man (and he did, he was a prominent Vietnam War protestor, he manned a camera and co-edited Woodstock), always voted Democrat, never once sold out...while Iger and Feige are literally the man. Likewise...most of the Marvel characters in movies were created by Lee/Kirby/Ditko/Simon/Don Heck who were all Greatest Generation people. The number of Marvel comics' created by Boomers are not many. As Alan Moore and Gerry Conway pointed out, the dominance of superheroes means that culturally the nostalgia of childhood of baby boomers defines that of the current generation. Most MCU directors are baby boomers or Generation Xers. RDJ for instance is an actor in his 40s...no millennial.

Spider-Man and his cast are the youngest being Generation Z and being stand-in for what MCU thinks their demographic is. The MCU movies paint him as a suppliant fanboy of Tony Stark who plays with toys his billionaire daddy tosses him. If you compare that to actual Generation Z kids like the Parkland protestors, he comes off as pretty damn toothless.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Again they are kid friendly. But most of the themes of these movies arent aimed at kids. TWS isnt made with a kid in mind at all.

The Winter Soldier raises issues of SHIELD having no government oversight but the actual conflict is moot since it turns out Nazi-Hydra are behind everything and they can be taken down by a punch and publicly releasing classified documents. That's laughable politically speaking. I mean it works in a childish sense but it's not any deep truth-telling to power. Winter Soldier is saying a propaganda character from the '40s has something to say to Modern America. Which okay is not a bad idea or concept but what it does is reduce contemporary America to the same dimensions as '40s America.

The Winter Soldier was inspired by movies like The Parallax View and other '70s movies. Well in those movies, the bad guys are usually not Nazis (they are just capitalists), and they also tend to get away with it. Winter Soldier borrows the surface trappings of '70s movies and casts Robert Redford as a tip of the hat...but at heart it is far less complex than its inspirations. It's basically a...theme park about politics, political thrillers, political thrillers of the '70s, and so on.

If you compare the real-world stuff it alludes to, i.e. WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden blowing the whistle then it's even more laughable. In real-life when Snowden blew the whistle on NSA he skedaddled to Putin's Moscow, basically he opposed corruption in the US government by...taking refuge in a country several degrees worse than US on its worst day. I mean if the MCU wanted to do the allegory it would have been Captain America, Black Widow and others blow the whistle on Shield and find refuge in the Latveria of Doctor Doom (hypothetically speaking, since I know there were the Fox rights issues a the time). Likewise, Edward Snowden blew the whistle on NSA during Obama's administration, does that mean Obama is Hydra? I mean it makes no sense even as political allegory. And then you have WikiLeaks where Julian Assange is also being covertly sponsored by Putin and other dictators, he's also a guy who is hiding from a rape allegation and charge and who many people who worked on WikiLeaks "for the cause" consider a megalomaniac.

[Kirby101]

The very bad point that the movies are not self contained and therefore aren't cinema because you need to see other movies to follow them (and i don't even agree that is the case with many of them.)
Well the same could be said of Godfather II, or any of the Indiana Jones sequels or John Wick, and so on. Even Scorcese's The Color of Money is helped by seeing The Hustler.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/jo...es-1202190112/

Well John Woo has now come against Marvel films. Who wants to "Ok Boomer" him?