Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I fail to see what the one has to do with the other. This is a bit too close to blaming an individuals flaws on the entertainment they enjoy. I am not comfortable with that comparison as it has historically been used for pro censorship purposes.

I suppose. It's just that the attempt to spin an aesthetic issue into a generational/political issue doesn't look good when the side generally doing that makes a howler like that.

The truth is that the MCU is very much a work by boomers and it runs largely on boomer nostalgia. Think about it most of the Marvel comics characters they make movies about come from the '60s, during the teenage and adolescent years of boomers and it's through boomer engagement that these characters and comics became prominent. I guarantee you that most of the young people who see the MCU movies or buy the merch haven't read the original comics, so essentially the MCU is a vehicle for boomer media to expand to a new market and new generation of consumers.

So essentially, as Alan Moore said it's the culture and adolescent nostalgia of one generation is sitting over that of later generations.

Really feels like the more interesting question raised by Scorsese's op-eds (are blockbusters pushing out other kinds of cinema) has really gotten lost in the attention that his other comments have gotten (e.g. whether the MCU is "real" cinema, provokes real emotion, Scorsese and other's personal dislike of the series, etc.).

I guess so. It's probably what Scorsese saw as a means to get his voice heard above the crowd. Not that he doesn't believe it, I am sure he does.

The two issues are definitely related however. The mainstream movies is downsizing so-to-speak and what takes over is something entirely different in Scorsese's perspective. From his POV, if a bunch of movies with only a few surface stylistic quirks but overall visual conformity in terms of lighting/color grading/staging of action/stunt choreography/VFX become so successful that other producers start going in that way, then that means that the director-with-a-personal-vision and style has a smaller place than before.

[Kirby101]

Really feels like the more interesting question raised by Scorsese's op-eds (are blockbusters pushing out other kinds of cinema) has really gotten lost in the attention that his other comments have gotten (e.g. whether the MCU is "real" cinema, provokes real emotion, Scorsese and other's personal dislike of the series, etc.).

To me that is a legitimate discussion. The "not cinema" argument is just inane. And of course, streaming has changed the way we watch film. So that is a better discussion.

[Midvillian1322]

John Woo Fears Marvel Movies ‘Will Make Young Audiences Get Lost When It Comes to Knowledge About Film’

a darm well fantastic piece by Woo.

Its not that far fetched, Scorsese ended up having more defenders. I read Woo's comments and its down to the same problem. these directors issues with mcu is the film making process of MCU that causes a lack of knowledge about films and I fully agree. for instance, I really shouldn't have to explain to anyone what are the requirement for academy awards in the major categories or why Joker has the best chance for comic film in 2020 but I ended up explaining it because like woo said, what mcu is doing is making people not understand films.

What is sad is many of these directors would never want to touch comic movies now as of 2019. the story would have been different before MCU movies. its bad for the genre but it is good for the MCU as it means MCU would never have to worry about their directors fighting for creative rights.

Your drawing your own conclusions and putting words in his mouth. Woo didnt saying anything about they're film making process except that its popular and dominates the conversation. Hes just worried that Superhero movies are dominating to the points kids arent gonna see other kinds of movies like the Scorsese films. John Woos American films dont apply, I havent seen his non hollywood films which is a big chunk of his history but his American movies Paycheck, The worst Mission impossible movie, Broken Arrow, Face off arent real Cinema either then. Faceoff is a dumb movie that's so over the top its entertaining. Most of John Woos hollywood films are bascialy nice action wrapped in a Fun or shitty wrapper depending on the movie. The guy broke into Hollywood at a time when I we saw was White dudes. Behind the camera. So not knocking his legacy but MCU movies have more emotional weight then Faceoff/Broken Arrow/ Paycheck..

Iono why were still doing this thing where Someone famous opinion justifies your own and therefore makes your opinion a fact.

[Totoro Man]

wow, Stan Lee actually asked John Woo if he would direct a Marvel movie... good call, Stan. Woo is fun director. but I have a hard time envisaging him not making an R-rated action film.

although I can understand why Woo turned it down... he rightly assesses that the MCU films are more sci-fi than conventional action.

wait! maybe they could convince him to do his remake of "the Killer" about Black Widow? I mean, I'd go watch that.

[Beaddle]

That is patently absurd. Knowing the inner workings of the Academy Awards. Or agreeing with your opinion on the Joker has ZERO to do with people understanding film.

It was Woo's take on people not understanding film. the inner working of academy is quite corrupted. how long did it take for scorsese to win one?

. I would say a large percentage here who love the MCU also have a pretty good grasp of cinema, as evident by myriad threads here

It give me great sadness to say this has not been my experience here on cbr, maybe it is different somewhere else but my experience here is always about rotten tomatoes and box office to understand cinema.

Scorsese's and Woo are approaching cinema like any other field. Cinema may not be medicine or law but it does not mean there are not requirement that can separate mediocre and exceptional.


This could be another angle that no one has brought up. Scorsese takes cinema very seriously. MCU does not take it seriously. so Scorsese feels offended as one of cinema's great.

[Farealmer]

I suppose. It's just that the attempt to spin an aesthetic issue into a generational/political issue doesn't look good when the side generally doing that makes a howler like that.

The truth is that the MCU is very much a work by boomers and it runs largely on boomer nostalgia. Think about it most of the Marvel comics characters they make movies about come from the '60s, during the teenage and adolescent years of boomers and it's through boomer engagement that these characters and comics became prominent. I guarantee you that most of the young people who see the MCU movies or buy the merch haven't read the original comics, so essentially the MCU is a vehicle for boomer media to expand to a new market and new generation of consumers.

The boomer/generational argument is a separate issue. In that post I was only commenting on the slippery slope of equating any flaws or mistakes someone makes with their support of the MCU. Liking the MCU doesn't make you race blind. Those are mutually exclusive and it's disconcerting to me when they are treated as linked. That could be used to make all sorts of assumptions of people.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That could be used to make all sorts of slippery slope assumptions of people.

Agreed.

The guy broke into Hollywood at a time when I we saw was White dudes. Behind the camera. So not knocking his legacy but MCU movies have more emotional weight then Faceoff/Broken Arrow/ Paycheck..

Face-Off is actually considered one of the best actions films of the '90s and it's esteem has gone up with the recent Nicholas Cage renaissance. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that John Woo is some safe and easy target for the MCU

[Beaddle]

Agreed.



Face-Off is actually considered one of the best actions films of the '90s and it's esteem has gone up with the recent Nicholas Cage renaissance. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that John Woo is some safe and easy target for the MCU

Wasn't faceoff grounding breaking in VFX. face off was one of those movies that has perhaps the best performances by the leading actors for an action thriller. John Travolata as the villain of that film still gave me chills even though he was the good guy. very complex movie that worked. the sad thing is there is nothing that should be stopping mcu from making movies like faceoff.

[WebLurker]

I suppose. It's just that the attempt to spin an aesthetic issue into a generational/political issue doesn't look good when the side generally doing that makes a howler like that.

The truth is that the MCU is very much a work by boomers and it runs largely on boomer nostalgia. Think about it most of the Marvel comics characters they make movies about come from the '60s, during the teenage and adolescent years of boomers and it's through boomer engagement that these characters and comics became prominent. I guarantee you that most of the young people who see the MCU movies or buy the merch haven't read the original comics, so essentially the MCU is a vehicle for boomer media to expand to a new market and new generation of consumers.

So essentially, as Alan Moore said it's the culture and adolescent nostalgia of one generation is sitting over that of later generations.

Course, a lot of these characters have already endured for generations. I honestly don't see how they're just the nostalgia of one specific generation when they've already arguably transcended a specific era for timelessness.

I guess so. It's probably what Scorsese saw as a means to get his voice heard above the crowd. Not that he doesn't believe it, I am sure he does.

The two issues are definitely related however. The mainstream movies is downsizing so-to-speak and what takes over is something entirely different in Scorsese's perspective. From his POV, if a bunch of movies with only a few surface stylistic quirks but overall visual conformity in terms of lighting/color grading/staging of action/stunt choreography/VFX become so successful that other producers start going in that way, then that means that the director-with-a-personal-vision and style has a smaller place than before.

Don't new trends start often on? Also, am not an expert, but it really seems like, for all the wondering if blockbusters are pushing stuff out, that there's plenty of other stuff hitting the theaters.

To me that is a legitimate discussion. The "not cinema" argument is just inane. And of course, streaming has changed the way we watch film. So that is a better discussion.

I've wondered if streaming might keep more things in the public eye, if that makes any sense.

[XPac]

Really feels like the more interesting question raised by Scorsese's op-eds (are blockbusters pushing out other kinds of cinema) has really gotten lost in the attention that his other comments have gotten (e.g. whether the MCU is "real" cinema, provokes real emotion, Scorsese and other's personal dislike of the series, etc.).

And that's ultimately the self sabotaging aspect of his message. He wraps a reasonable opinion around a notion which is 100% false. The former is going to get lost in the narrative of the later. THere is an upside to the wohle "real" cinema, in that the notion is no stupid it's getting far more attention than his message would otherwise. But it's the wrong kind of attention, in that it places focus on the stupidity of his statement over the parts which might arguably have merit.

[WebLurker]

And that's ultimately the self sabotaging aspect of his message. He wraps a reasonable opinion around a notion which is 100% false. The former is going to get lost in the narrative of the later. THere is an upside to the wohle "real" cinema, in that the notion is no stupid it's getting far more attention than his message would otherwise. But it's the wrong kind of attention, in that it places focus on the stupidity of his statement over the parts which might arguably have merit.

Wonder if anything will change for the better because of it?

[Beaddle]

And that's ultimately the self sabotaging aspect of his message. He wraps a reasonable opinion around a notion which is 100% false. The former is going to get lost in the narrative of the later. THere is an upside to the wohle "real" cinema, in that the notion is no stupid it's getting far more attention than his message would otherwise. But it's the wrong kind of attention, in that it places focus on the stupidity of his statement over the parts which might arguably have merit.

Perhaps the mods should make a thread and tell us individually to define cinema. the thread will be open to everyone.
435 Responses here, we can evolve the thread by asking each other to define cinema.

I define cinema as the art of film making that is brought to an audience. Do I think art can be subjective? yes, do I think great cinema can differentiate subjective from objective? yes. do I think scorsese is talking about great cinema with marvel objectivity? yes because he goes after how their films comes to life.

[Powerboy]

Scarlet Johansson: "I think what these people are saying is that at the actual theater, there’s not a lot of room for different kinds of movies, or smaller movies, because the theater is taken up by huge blockbusters."

Natalie Portman: "I think that Marvel films are so popular because they're really entertaining and people desire entertainment when they have their special time after work, after dealing with their hardships in real life."

I think Scarlet Johansson nails what some of these people have against the MCU which is not their popularity but the business side that arguably hurts film as a whole by not even leaving room for other movies to have showings.

Likewise, I suspect Portman equally nails the reason for the popularity of the MCU.

[Beaddle]

William Dafoe the Green Goblin gives his take on the topic. he was asked what scorsese said about marvel. I sort of knew this was going to happen because of the Scorsese comment, many people who have been involved in superhero movies of the past will begin to distant their own superhero films from MCU movies.Dafoe says a lot.
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/248...outgrew-itself
Willem Dafoe Finds Superhero Movies Too Long, Noisy, And Overshot: 'The Industry Outgrew Itself'
Some of what Willem Dafoe said will bug comic book movie fans, but he also said some things that I think most fans will agree with. There's plenty of common ground in this discussion. And as much as I love most superhero films, I think it's good for people in the industry like Dafoe to give it this kind of public tough love.


I mean, I’ve done some of those movies, and they’re fun. But also, even then, I got lucky because they’ve been personal. For example, Spider-Man was great fun [B][U]because Sam Raimi made that like it was a little independent film. And also that was before a lot of the technology was in place, and comic book movies were fairly new, so it was exciting. There was nothing by the numbers, they didn't roll in the experts. Now it's become, the industry outgrew itself.

You have fun with some of the things that you get to do, because there’s lots of hardware and there’s lots of crazy crane shots and those kind of things. That’s fun. But stuff is overshot. They spend a lot of money on big set pieces, because that’s what delivers the action, and I find them too long and too noisy. But let’s not get into this [laughs]. I don’t want to bite the hand that feeds me. But, no, seriously, folks. Look, those aren’t the movies I run to.


I like James Wan. I think he’s a good filmmaker and he was kind of amazing that he could do this big stuff, and he could also talk to the actors. ... I [play] the old master, sort of, I guess. But that's how it's pitched to me, and with these movies the script that you sign on for is never the script that's made.

Films have changed so much even in the time that I’ve been working, where they sit in the culture, obviously, and how we watch films. And I’m a pretty forward-looking person, but I’m old-fashioned in the fact that nothing beats being in a dark room with a bunch of strangers, watching a light on a screen and having the experience. I think as everybody gets punched out from too much stuff on TV, too many choices, they’re gonna want that. So it may be a more marginalized thing, but I think it’ll always be there.


What I worry about is, those big movies, they need something to feed them. They need a surge, and they need people pushing the boundaries so they can go forward. Because they’re not in the business of going forward, really. They’re in the business of business, and you can make beautiful things because they have a lot of resources. They can make fantastic things and they can make things that work all over the world because very few other countries have that kind of muscle to make these spectacular things. And they’ve touched on comic book movies which have kind of a Joseph Campbell thing going, they’re our modern gods. But I don’t have anything, really, intelligent to say about this [laughs].


Dafoe keeps it classy, its more though love here than a I hate mcu rant too from him. The only thing I care about is when he said Sam Raimi made Spiderman like his own little independent movie and were not by the numbers. something many of us who were more on Sony side then Disney side during the Sony vs Disney spiderman war pointed out, even Dafoe is saying comic movies today are paint by numbers and his era, the comic movies were less shallow. another thing some of us have said too.

I see this happening more, many like Dafoe and Mangold will come out more and say I was in a comic movie but it was a different time. it really is a shame what happened too people like Bryan Singer. I would have liked to hear his take on the matter considering he was one of the director that redefined how to look at comic movies.

Anyway, we are seeing the impact of scorsese, seeing how people are not being asked to respond left and right. Personally it make me sad and kind of angry. I just think its unfair people from the Raimi or per mcu era are put in the spot to defend their comic movies because of the negative influence MCU has brought to the genre

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Gotta love Willem Dafoe, "But I don’t have anything, really, intelligent to say about this" says a guy who says many intelligent things about it. Dafoe's major leading role in a movie is Scorsese's The last Temptation of Christ. That's how Scorsese dealt with Jesus, a guy who didn't believe violence was the way to defeat evil (as opposed to superheroes who do in fact believe and practice the opposite) where he showed Jesus with inner torment, doubts, worries, hangups and made him someone who was a little weird and quirky.

Dafoe famously mocked the Amazing Spider-Man films noting they were just retreading and redoing stuff the first Raimi movies did.

What Dafoe talks about the movies being overshot is also a huge problem. A good percentage of MCU stuff is done in reshoots and so on. They take time to schedule actors to give dates for reshoots after previews and feedback and so on. That means even less control for directors than before...and it's also a case of a problem of having different teams doing stunts and pre-vis than the director so when you have to do the preview the footage and other stuff don't cut well so things need to be redone to synch both up.