Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[CliffHanger2]

The Irishman production budget is over 140 mil. Even in his prime Scorsese would have had trouble getting studios to fund a movie like this.

[CliffHanger2]

As I said, what people feel and reality of the situation are often not the same. Take any year you want and I bet money you'd see that the ratios aren't that different than today.

Yeah it really is perception vs reality here.

[Farealmer]

I mean it's not just film-makers but people in comics like Alan Moore who said this recently:
"I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying. While these characters were originally perfectly suited to stimulating the imaginations of their twelve or thirteen year-old audience, today’s franchised übermenschen, aimed at a supposedly adult audience, seem to be serving some kind of different function, and fulfilling different needs. Primarily, mass-market superhero movies seem to be abetting an audience who do not wish to relinquish their grip on (a) their relatively reassuring childhoods, or (b) the relatively reassuring 20th century. The continuing popularity of these movies to me suggests some kind of deliberate, self-imposed state of emotional arrest, combined with an numbing condition of cultural stasis that can be witnessed in comics, movies, popular music and, indeed, right across the cultural spectrum."
(https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/11...tankerousness/)

The issue for me is you could easily apply that logic to a lot of things. Phrases like "emotional arrest" and cultural stasis" are vague enough to use against nearly anything someone doesn't like.

[CliffHanger2]

The issue for me is you could easily apply that logic to a lot of things. Phrases like "emotional arrest" and cultural stasis" are vague enough to use against nearly anything someone doesn't like.

In fact those are just the type of words used when gangster movies became popular.

[luprki]

That is exactly what this comes down to.

Film makers from the time before films had sound or color could probably make a pretty solid argument for why everything Scorcese has ever done isn't really cinema.

That entire rabbit hole is only going to wind up with a body chasing it's own tail at the bottom.

You’re getting technology mixed up with artistic integrity.

[Farealmer]

I do wonder though if the timing for this spat of high profile criticism isn't deliberate in a different way than stated before. It might be because those in the industry understand this is a critical point for the MCU. With Endgame done it's finished it's first major arc(Thanos). And for all it's success the final test of the MCU may be if it can do it again. Any naysaying before wouldn't have had nearly as much impact as people weren't going to not see the last two avengers movies if they were invested up until then. But now Thanos is gone as is Tony, Natasha, and Cap, some of the major keystones of the movies until now. This is the crucial moment before they get the x-men engine going and may be the last time any opposition to this train has a chance to have any effect. That may be very well why people like Scorsese and Woo are speaking out now.

[Kirby101]

Because Lucas was a young up-and-coming film-maker whose career at the time was not very distinguished. Likewise, the previous science-fiction movie he made THX-1138 was a huge flop so people had real doubts why, after he made a hit movie about teenagers in the early '60s like American Graffiti, they should throw money on another attempt by him to make science-fiction happen.

American Graffiti, based on earnings vs budget was the most successful movie of all time. But the studio wasn't sure about his next film. Sound familiar? And Scorcese isn't talking about only his movies, which he obviously can still find funding for. He is saying the studios want movies that make money in the current atmosphere, which he says is too dominated by these types of movies, so young film makers, as Lucas was find it hard to find a studio to back them. All sounds familiar.
Talk to Jon Favreau, Spike Lee or many others. This is not different.

Beyond that, can we just put to rest the "not cinema" idiocy?

[Beaddle]

If someone is going to insist that the difference between silent film and film with sound is simply a technical one and not even remotely an artistic one?

Not much point in talking what is "Actually Cinema" after that.

I could be wrong but didn't the artist win best picture like 7 years ago? a silent black and white film winning that in the 2010s? post Titanic, post LOTR.

Scorsese makes his movies with color and sound but you know what has no changed to the golden age of Hollywood black and white? writing, performances and story. that has not changed in remotely redefining artistic movies.

I have been watching comic movies long before the MCU, there is not one MCU movie that has a great screen play. Their writing is so basic even for the children Disney swears they care so much in entertaining. its almost shocking this is the case after 25 movies. Every MCU screenplay that develops into a plot is shockingly derivate. The first 10 minutes of Goodfellas, leaves you with things to unpack about the narrator's life. that is an artistically good movie and no we don't need to be distracted by CGI to make up for little plot.

If it concerns film technicology, I think it is the CGI MCU has not handled properly, their sound is bombastic too as things are too over the top and like a William Dafoe said, Loud. Scorsese's Hugo is more subtle and fitting for good action adventure cinema that MCU swears to be.

[Scott Taylor]

Spielberg has also said Hes likes Guardians better then The Dark Knight and Donners Superman. It's his favorite Comicbook movie

Guardians was an interesting movie, in that it had the humor levels and the oddness of the characters that differs from lots of the Marvel superhero movies. It was the first superhero movie my wife enjoyed, of all the classic ones. And its led to her being open to going and seeing others. And that is just one story - I've heard of other similar people who don't like superhero films in general who went and saw and enjoyed Guardians. So I think that Guardians was a crossover type of movie that was popular with people who don't really get that into comic books.

Looking at that movie, just its construction really goes against the typical formula. Its a heist type of film with tons of humor and neat (dare I say cute) characters. Ant-Man had the same sort of vibe.

So I don't think Scorcese was necessarily lumping this film into his assessment. He seemed to be talking more about the biggest ones like Avengers.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

So I don't think Scorcese was necessarily lumping this film into his assessment. He seemed to be talking more about the biggest ones like Avengers.

Scorsese said that he saw a couple of the MCU movies and decided it wasn't worth his time. I am assuming he didn't name the movies to be diplomatic but instead everyone in the MCU sort of assumed he was talking about or insulting either them, or that it was their movies he hadn't seen and was dismissing out-of-hand.

Considering Scorsese said the MCU are "sequels in name but remakes in spirit" I think he was referring to The Avengers 1 which was a sequel to the origin movies that came before rather than Guardians or other movies which introduced new characters.

[Scott Taylor]

Avengers was unabashedly formulaic movie with a bunch of funny lines but a contrived and silly plot that was so filled to the brim with comic-booky tropes that it almost embarrassed me even though I liked it. So yah it was probably that one. You know you have a superhero movie on your hands, rather than a work of serious cinema, when the main kind of stuff you remember fondly about it are Scarlett Johansen's butt, RDJ talking about Thor's drapes and Hulk sucker punching Thor. Special shout-out to the movie's wisecrack at adoptive kids and parents, really appreciated that one.

But I suspect he wouldn't have liked Guardians a whole bunch either since it had some of the same kinds of tropes and feel-good, blockbuster type of moments.

The MCU just isn't Scorcese's cup of tea, you know?

[numberthirty]

Avengers was unabashedly formulaic movie with a bunch of funny lines but a contrived and silly plot that was so filled to the brim with comic-booky tropes that it almost embarrassed me even though I liked it. So yah it was probably that one. You know you have a superhero movie on your hands, rather than a work of serious cinema, when the main kind of stuff you remember fondly about it are Scarlett Johansen's butt, RDJ talking about Thor's drapes and Hulk sucker punching Thor. Special shout-out to the movie's wisecrack at adoptive kids and parents, really appreciated that one.

But I suspect he wouldn't have liked Guardians a whole bunch either since it had some of the same kinds of tropes and feel-good, blockbuster type of moments.

The MCU just isn't Scorcese's cup of tea, you know?

Which is something that just about anyone could make a perfectly valid case for Goodfellas or Casino being when it comes to "Organized Crime Films".

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Which is something that just about anyone could make a perfectly valid case for Goodfellas or Casino being when it comes to "Organized Crime Films".

Goodfellas and Casino utterly revolutionized narrative film in terms of editing, camera movement, action, storytelling. It's one of the most influential movies of the '90s. There was never anything like it before and after that it created a slew of imitators.

Goodfellas is a movie that steamrolls over such things as "three-act structure" and conventional ideas of character arcs for something entirely new. More lifelike, more organic, and more stylish. The flashbacks and flashforward structure, the cutwaways, the use of music. Nobody had seen anything like that before. There hasn't been anything like it since.

[numberthirty]

Goodfellas and Casino utterly revolutionized narrative film in terms of editing, camera movement, action, storytelling. It's one of the most influential movies of the '90s. There was never anything like it before and after that it created a slew of imitators.

Goodfellas is a movie that steamrolls over such things as "three-act structure" and conventional ideas of character arcs for something entirely new. More lifelike, more organic, and more stylish. The flashbacks and flashforward structure, the cutwaways, the use of music. Nobody had seen anything like that before. There hasn't been anything like it since.

Let's assume that we could agree on those assertions...

Those films also contain some of the most "Paint By Numbers..." representations of men who are a part of organized crime ever to wind up on film.

Never mind the representations of the characters as a part of their respective ethic groups.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Those films also contain some of the most "Paint By Numbers..." representations of men who are a part of organized crime ever to wind up on film.

It's based on real historical figures and actual events that happened in real life.

Never mind the representations of the characters as a part of their respective ethic groups.

The main character is Irish-American and he marries a Jewish woman (who is given a major voiceover and is one of the major characters of the movie), and he's excluded from becoming a real part of the Italian mob's inner circle which values "pure blood Italians" and so on.

So if you're trying to say the movie is some ethnic ghetto tour and so on...then that's not really the movie.