Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[Mister Mets]

He needs to stop fetishizing theaters. There’s more variety and quality content than ever before thanks to streaming. In the coming months I’ll be renting 2019 art films like Parasite, The Lighthouse, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, A Hidden Life, and The Farewell. The best part is that I won’t have to sit in a theater next to some bloated corpse shoveling popcorn down his throat or some idiot’s screeching goblin.

Directors do have a preference for the theatrical experience. Generally, there's been a demarcation between theatrical releases and made for TV films, which is getting murkier with Netflix making movies available within a month of their theatrical release, so that should really be resolved.

At the moment, an original movie for HBO is not eligible for Oscars, but that distinction's making less and less sense. At the same time, the academy (which serves as an example of gatekeepers in the industry) has awards for short films that prize short films shown on the big screen rather than good material made for TV/ streaming.

There are a few things I would want to say about how Scorsese is mostly right. but I could get banned again because there is a blurred line here between Marvel hate bashing and honestly criticising marvel.

All I would say is this story is nothing new, Bryan Singer already said the same thing about comic movies in 2000. Reasoned he Unusual suspected the living **** out of his xmen movies. Anyone who grew up with comic movies in the 2000s would probably understand why Scorsese thinks Marvel movies don't necessarily work today as Cinema.. Many directors who have lived in the bubble of comic films said the same thing almost 14-20 years and managed to stirred the boat away for a while but looks like comic films are back to the way the genre was in Batman and Robin or even worse.

My first post links to a New York Times op-ed by a major director discussing superhero films, so it's certainly relevant to a comic book message board. While I do express an opinion, it is relatively nuanced and meant to coax out a variety of responses, which is what we got.

[Midvillian1322]

Kinda funny Coppolas Nephew loves this stuff while his uncle thinks its despicable. I mean Cage took his name from Luke Cage, been in two Ghostrider moives and has expressed his love for the MCU. Also been rumored to be considered in a few movies most recently Dr Strange 2. Which I would mind him playing an over the top character like Nightmare or the Beyonder.

But yea Francis Ford Coppola's statement is the only one I find bothersome. Scorsese corrected himself and kinda made it sound like it just wasnt his thing and he was only speaking for himself. Francis comments were just disrespectful to the fullest. Even kinda shits on his nephew by association since Cage is probaly one the biggest marvel Fans turned Actor in hollywood. Nick Cage and Mehtodman are the two that jump to my mind right away.

[Mister Mets]

From a certain point of view, Scorsese is right. There is a huge gulf of difference between the auteur style of film making that he espouses as true cinema and the studio driven model of the Marvel films...but he goes way off base in trying to paint a picture where his preferred style was once the norm and that the rise of films like the Marvel movies have irrevocably changed the landscape on cinema for the worse and is some brand new threat to the art that is the motion picture.

The picture he paints is pure fiction and has been since nearly the birth of film as a creative medium. There's never been a time when the types of films he waxes poetically on have been the majority of the output in theatres...they've always been the minority and always will by their very nature. There are only so many people with the skills to write, direct and produce the kinds of films he admires, and because that number is small and the year is long that means they will always be out numbered by other types of films.

It all comes to a lot of unnecessary hand wringing in my mind, lamenting the loss of the good old days...that never actually existed.

Superhero films do dominate the box office in significant ways. Partly, they're beneficiaries of various trends: special effects finally catching up to Jack Kirby, greater available of earlier material in DVD/ streaming/ cable reruns, so that people can watch dozens of films in one saga.

Four of the top seven movies this year were superhero/ comic book movies (Endgame, Far From Home, Captain Marvel, Joker.)
Last year was also pretty good for superhero/ comic book movies, with Black Panther in first, Infinity War in second, Incredibles 2 in third, Deadpool 2 in fifth, Antman in 9th and Venom in 11th and Aquaman in 15th (the latter three were also big hits on the international market.)
The year before had Wonder Woman, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Homecoming, Ragnarok, Justice League, Logan and the Lego Batman movie in the Top 14.

On the other hand the top 20 of 1999 includes the Phantom Menace, Big Daddy, The Mummy, Wild Wild West and Inspector Gadget.
The top 20 of 1998 includes some crappy science fiction films: Armageddon, Deep Impact, Godzilla, The X-Files, so it's not like the rise in superhero films has replaced an interesting golden era.

[Ilan Preskovsky]

I have a better understanding of what Scorsese is saying now but, however much I appreciate his frustration with having his films overshadowed by franchise films in cinemas, it's still just the usual old crap about genre fiction not being "real" art that genre fans have had to deal with pretty much forever. It didn't matter that Raymond Chandler was one of the greatest writers in his day, for example, because the fact that he wrote in the "lowly" PI genre meant that he was never taken seriously at all by the literary establishment. By the same token, Joker is being seen as a better movie than Avengers: Endgame simply because while the latter achieves its aims through humour, action set-pieces, fantasy adventure, and optimism, the former goes the far more "respectable" route of drab realism, sombreness, and nihilism. It's not even about which is better and certainly not which one is more enjoyable to specific individuals (I think that Endgame is far superior to Joker, others obviously don't) but it's that Joker is far more readily embraced as "real art" than Avengers: Endgame.

I respect the hell out of Scorsese - though it probably says something that my favourite film of his is Hugo - but I would have thought he was better than this sort of narrow-minded anti-genre bias.

[Bloxer]

I don't have a problem with what Spielberg said. He is clearly stating his personal preferences. And he was very complimentary about the films he did enjoy.

“I love the Superman of Richard Donner, The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan, and the first Iron Man, but [the] superhero film that impressed me most is one that does not take itself too seriously: Guardians of the Galaxy. When his projection was over, I left with the feeling of having seen something new in movies, without any cynicism or fear of being dark when needed. "

Saying superheroes are the sort of people would shake a car to get a trapped person out isn't really a personal preference as much as it is a very outdated misconception of the characters.

[Beaddle]

Or that they don't struggle or risk anything. It's like he hasn't read a comic book in 70 years or something.

Marvel movies are not a deep reflection of the comics. Marvel movies are a reflection of a well oiled formula. There would not be much backlash against marvel if marvel actually borrowed more from the comics than from Disney feeble lore.

Bloxer View Post
This will always sound incredibly ignorant and tone-deaf to me though, just saying superheroes are just idiots with powers and no common sense.

Sounds like what James Cameron said, I would not call him tone deaf but insightful. I say this with quote from James: “I’m hoping we’ll start getting Avenger fatigue here pretty soon. Not that I don’t love the movies. It’s just, come on guys, there are other stories to tell besides hyper-gonadal males without families doing death-defying things for two hours and wrecking cities in the process. It’s like, oy!”
https://www.screengeek.net/2019/05/0...ngers-fatigue/

I hope the mods don't see this as marvel bashing but I wanted people to really understand why I was against all the big land massive cgi fights that always happened in avengers. I called avengers movies animated sequences, Scorsese says they are theme parks. Its just not good film making that is supposes to help comic movies gain a better reputation.

Marvel is perceived the way it is because they have always cared more about the superficial elements of comics. The destruction of a whole city, in some instances a whole planet takes up over 50-70% % of the film. That is not storytelling in the manner Scorsese thinks about Cinema. That said, the audience has changed as well.

[thwhtGuardian]

Superhero films do dominate the box office in significant ways. Partly, they're beneficiaries of various trends: special effects finally catching up to Jack Kirby, greater available of earlier material in DVD/ streaming/ cable reruns, so that people can watch dozens of films in one saga.

Four of the top seven movies this year were superhero/ comic book movies (Endgame, Far From Home, Captain Marvel, Joker.)
Last year was also pretty good for superhero/ comic book movies, with Black Panther in first, Infinity War in second, Incredibles 2 in third, Deadpool 2 in fifth, Antman in 9th and Venom in 11th and Aquaman in 15th (the latter three were also big hits on the international market.)
The year before had Wonder Woman, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Homecoming, Ragnarok, Justice League, Logan and the Lego Batman movie in the Top 14.

On the other hand the top 20 of 1999 includes the Phantom Menace, Big Daddy, The Mummy, Wild Wild West and Inspector Gadget.
The top 20 of 1998 includes some crappy science fiction films: Armageddon, Deep Impact, Godzilla, The X-Files, so it's not like the rise in superhero films has replaced an interesting golden era.

That's precisely my point, the golden age he's lamenting never existed. Cinema has always been dominated by films put out by studios chasing the latest trends, whether it's action/comedies, sci-fi, buddy cop movies, over the top action like Stalone and company, slashers, westerns, musicals ect. ect. ad infinitum. Sure the superhero craze has lasted a good while...but it only makes up like a quarter of the yearly box office and while that is a lot and is perhaps a bigger bite than previous genres have held it still means there is a lot out there that isn't superheroes so there's still plenty of room left for auteur films. On top of that space there are also other streaming options available which means there are other avenues available than just the box office so I just can't see how directors like Copala and especially Scorsese (who just had a film financed by Netflix) can have a legitimate gripe here.

It just seems like another case of a generation reaching their, "Get off my lawn!" phase rather than an actual critique.

[CliffHanger2]

Good Fellas was a masterpiece but Scorcese hasn't done anything "totally new and unexpected" for more than 30 years if ever. If he's going by that his own films don't fit the bill."Unameable places" Like where a car trunk? lol foh….

[Mister Mets]

That's precisely my point, the golden age he's lamenting never existed. Cinema has always been dominated by films put out by studios chasing the latest trends, whether it's action/comedies, sci-fi, buddy cop movies, over the top action like Stalone and company, slashers, westerns, musicals ect. ect. ad infinitum. Sure the superhero craze has lasted a good while...but it only makes up like a quarter of the yearly box office and while that is a lot and is perhaps a bigger bite than previous genres have held it still means there is a lot out there that isn't superheroes so there's still plenty of room left for auteur films. On top of that space there are also other streaming options available which means there are other avenues available than just the box office so I just can't see how directors like Copala and especially Scorsese (who just had a film financed by Netflix) can have a legitimate gripe here.

It just seems like another case of a generation reaching their, "Get off my lawn!" phase rather than an actual critique.

There is a substance to his complaint, although it may be based on an underlying fallacy.

Here's the argument as I've heard it. Scorsese came of age as a director during the era of New Hollywood, when there was a string of exciting new work that didn't conform to earlier standards, partly as a way to compete with TV. In the ten years after 1967, we had daring mainstream material like The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider, Patton, Five Easy Pieces, The French Connection, The Last Picture Show, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, Cabaret, Deliverance, Mean Streets, The Exorcist, The Last Tango in Paris, The Godfather Part 2, Lenny, Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dog Day Afternoon, Nashville, Network, All the President's Men and Taxi Driver.

One explanation is that this era came to an end with the success of summer blockbusters of Jaws, Star Wars, Superman, which brought more family friendly hits and sequels.

Another explanation is that the movie industry had failed to adjust to the reality of American consumers moving to the suburbs. When the multiplexes came along, more people were able to see more movies near where they lived, and they opted to see Superman II rather than Reds.

In addition, if the late 60s/ early 70s was a period when movies were able to do stuff that we couldn't see on TV, we may be arguably be shifting to an era where the exciting mature audiences material is on TV (Game of Thrones, Fleabag, Better Call Saul, Chernobyl, Now They See Us, etc.)

[Xero Kaiser]

Its just not good film making that is supposes to help comic movies gain a better reputation.

Gain a better reputation with who? People who don't like comic movies?

Why do their opinions matter?

[thwhtGuardian]

There is a substance to his complaint, although it may be based on an underlying fallacy.

Here's the argument as I've heard it. Scorsese came of age as a director during the era of New Hollywood, when there was a string of exciting new work that didn't conform to earlier standards, partly as a way to compete with TV. In the ten years after 1967, we had daring mainstream material like The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider, Patton, Five Easy Pieces, The French Connection, The Last Picture Show, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, Cabaret, Deliverance, Mean Streets, The Exorcist, The Last Tango in Paris, The Godfather Part 2, Lenny, Chinatown, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dog Day Afternoon, Nashville, Network, All the President's Men and Taxi Driver.

One explanation is that this era came to an end with the success of summer blockbusters of Jaws, Star Wars, Superman, which brought more family friendly hits and sequels.

Another explanation is that the movie industry had failed to adjust to the reality of American consumers moving to the suburbs. When the multiplexes came along, more people were able to see more movies near where they lived, and they opted to see Superman II rather than Reds.

In addition, if the late 60s/ early 70s was a period when movies were able to do stuff that we couldn't see on TV, we may be arguably be shifting to an era where the exciting mature audiences material is on TV (Game of Thrones, Fleabag, Better Call Saul, Chernobyl, Now They See Us, etc.)

It's definitely one of my favorite eras of films...but it's a brief aberration not the norm and it ended over four decades ago so you'd think he would have made peace with that change long ago.

[Powerboy]

Scorsese has an op-ed in the New York Times where he elaborates on his comments that Marvel movies are not cinema. He does not back down.





I think his general concern about the lack of opportunities to see a variety of films on the big screen is right, but he's wrong about Marvel films lacking variety or character complexity, at least relative to typical Hollywood blockbusters.

I agree with your assessment. But I also wanted to say, "Yaaaawwwwnn". Yet another diatribe about people getting the movies they want to see when those movies are available. And it's not that theaters don't carry those other movies. It's that people don't go to them as much when they have a choice of seeing what they really want.

It is unfortunate in a way but if the movies he preferred could compete, there would be more of them. The problem I have is that the argument often seems to be that the Marvel type movies shouldn't be made because other movies can't compete with them. Yeah, well, I should have been World Heavyweight Boxing Champion but I couldn't beat Ali or any of the contenders. Guess they should have stopped fighting so I could compete.

[Powerboy]

From a certain point of view, Scorsese is right. There is a huge gulf of difference between the auteur style of film making that he espouses as true cinema and the studio driven model of the Marvel films...but he goes way off base in trying to paint a picture where his preferred style was once the norm and that the rise of films like the Marvel movies have irrevocably changed the landscape on cinema for the worse and is some brand new threat to the art that is the motion picture.

The picture he paints is pure fiction and has been since nearly the birth of film as a creative medium. There's never been a time when the types of films he waxes poetically on have been the majority of the output in theatres...they've always been the minority and always will by their very nature. There are only so many people with the skills to write, direct and produce the kinds of films he admires, and because that number is small and the year is long that means they will always be out numbered by other types of films.

It all comes to a lot of unnecessary hand wringing in my mind, lamenting the loss of the good old days...that never actually existed.

Yes. I believe that when John Sturges was asked why he directed the Magnificent Seven, he said, "I like shoot 'em ups".

Yes it's selective memory. For every movie he names, there was a John Wayne western or an Abbott and Costello or some other such movie and far more of them.

By the way, I've never seen the Godfather movies except for clips, not because of quality but I just don't like gangster movies where the main characters are all thugs killing each other. To me, it doesn't come across as profound at all.

[WebLurker]

There are a few things I would want to say about how Scorsese is mostly right. but I could get banned again because there is a blurred line here between Marvel hate bashing and honestly criticising marvel.

All I would say is this story is nothing new, Bryan Singer already said the same thing about comic movies in 2000. Reasoned he Unusual suspected the living **** out of his xmen movies. Anyone who grew up with comic movies in the 2000s would probably understand why Scorsese thinks Marvel movies don't necessarily work today as Cinema.. Many directors who have lived in the bubble of comic films said the same thing almost 14-20 years and managed to stirred the boat away for a while but looks like comic films are back to the way the genre was in Batman and Robin or even worse.

I remember this old Star Trek quote: "Don't try to be a great man; just be a man, and let history make its own judgments." I kinda think that's how movies and other art work, whether it be an experimental artistic piece or or the latest franchise blockbuster.

[Beaddle]

Gain a better reputation with who? People who don't like comic movies?

Except many people who like comics movies are much aware marvel movies are just the basic form of what comic movies can be.

Why do their opinions matter?

Let's just say, Scorsese and his buddies can do more harm than rotten tomatoes.