Scorsese explains why he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Gaimans being a bit dense and possibly trolly in his account frankly. Scorsese clearly says their not cinema and uses his and other movies as an example of artistic cinema. When others point that out his only reply is "Have you read the article"

Scorsese is attacking Marvel and superheroes as a genre. Gaiman sees Scorsese as a natural ally since he has never been on board with the idea of superheroes being the be all and end all. Don’t see what’s to misunderstand there.

Eh, if you take away the level of sentimentality in his comments there is a core of truth present. The MCU is about form over substance. They are very comic-bookey, in other words, in every sense of the word as a pejorative.

You simply never get the big moments of the great directors in these films, to make you think or consider anything philosophical or deeply meaningful. To put it in terms that are, sadly, familiar considering the season - the MCU films are basically like Hallmark Channel Christmas movies for a broader audience but mostly for guys. To put it in 1980s teen film terms, they are Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, not the Breakfast Club.

I think because superhero characters are extreme. They don’t die, don’t grow old, rarely have sex and morality wise you can’t have them be too compromised or flawed. Most movies which are considered great deal with characters who aren’t bound by that. Now of course there are exceptions like Logan but that’s not really representative of the genre.

They can’t really speak about big stuff like history. Captain America First Avenger will never be better than Casablanca, saving private Ryan, Best Years of Our Lives in terms of saying stuff about world war 2.

The Godfather and Chinatown were movies that were about criminals who get away, heroes who become corrupt and so on. You will never have a superhero movie that goes all the way there. If they do it will be a cliffhanger and have a stinger and next movie you will see it undone as happened with Thanos.

[Farealmer]

I think because superhero characters are extreme. They don’t die, don’t grow old, rarely have sex and morality wise you can’t have them be too compromised or flawed. Most movies which are considered great deal with characters who aren’t bound by that. Now of course there are exceptions like Logan but that’s not really representative of the genre.

The netflix shows had flawed heroes. The genre is fairly adaptable.

[CliffHanger2]

I think the point that often never gets said regarding the MCU is that not only are they bad films, they are bad comic book stories too. The MCU will never be able to replicate the epic scale of Walt Simonson's Thor run, a comic book that proved to me the medium had value and was worth reading, so instead they turned him into a joke character, a dabbing fool. Fiege has no respect for comics, film or art.

Simonson was the first to turn Thor into a joke by making a frog. I couldn't take that seriously as a kid.

[CliffHanger2]

The Godfather and Chinatown were movies that were about criminals who get away, heroes who become corrupt and so on. You will never have a superhero movie that goes all the way there. If they do it will be a cliffhanger and have a stinger and next movie you will see it undone as happened with Thanos.

Why are those themes seen as profound to ppl? Heroes becoming corrupt ,criminals getting away. They aren't those themes are just more mundane no more artistic than anything else. Maybe even less.

[Beaddle]

Frankly, I don't think Marvel Studios has anything to worry about from a noted filmmaker naysaying them. Their success speaks for itself, and I'm going to bet that it'll last for some time, like how we're still watching Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and other such blockbuster franchises years after the fact.

Marvel studio should be worried. They have X-Men now. its a complete different ballgame to their past marvel IPs. nobody cares about Disney success anymore, Disney is fastly gaining a eputation as a cash machine for soulless products.

Can you imagine what James Mangold or Mathew Vaughn would think about light heated comedy xmen movies that follows the mcu formula?

See I hate when People say that. Two easiest example from the MCU of Deeper themes is Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther. Both have run of the mill surface themes Gotg has family and Friendship etc.. and Black Panther Opression and Isloationism. But none of those are the core of those movies . Guardians is about Abuse and Trauma and how it shapes us. Groots the only one exempt because we dont know his childhood but even supporting chatacters like Yondu and Mantis even apply. Drax also was an adult when his trauma happened so hes an outlier since its childhood trauma for most every other character. Black panther at its core is about Killmonger and Tchalla. Killmonger being a stand in for the African Ameican experience and Tchalla for Black excellence. Ive mentioned this mutiple times on this thread so I wont waste anyones time elaborating further without cause.

Defiently plenty of the MCU movies arent made with deep philosophic themes underlining the narratives but even the ones that dont Work because instead of getting you invested in the Plot they get you infested in the Hero. Which is smart cause now they know if they make a reasonably well made movie your willing to take that ride becuase you love Thor or Ironman or Antman... whoever you name it. Which in of itself is Art and not easy. But painting the entire MCU with a broad brush is silly. Also Hallmark movies are cheap and poorly acted. Even Scorsese admitted these movies are well Made. That comparison isnt fair.

Marvel write themes like it is something you see on their Disney live action channel. there is not enough focus or depth to it but don't worry, I am 100% sure this will become more obvious when they make their xmen movies, you will see just how shallow and hollow marvel write themes.

I think the point that often never gets said regarding the MCU is that not only are they bad films, they are bad comic book stories too. The MCU will never be able to replicate the epic scale of Walt Simonson's Thor run, a comic book that proved to me the medium had value and was worth reading, so instead they turned him into a joke character, a dabbing fool. Fiege has no respect for comics, film or art.

The way thor is treated still has many defenders. I went out of my way to explain why Thor as a dabbing fool does not work. I even gave many other examples of characters in the same situations but where not turned into a jokes. Some are still defending the writing. what more can we do? especially when we are comic book readers ourselves

Not sure about Feige. ItÂ’s possible for someone to be a fan of comics and care about art and still get it wrong. Just loving something doesnÂ’t mean you are going to be good.

But yeah. I think the MCU are in a lot of cases watering down the weirdness and energy of the comics which something like ITSV has. ItÂ’s always one kind of humor and limited approach go characterisation. Always quips and snarks and so on. Spider-Man is a lame caricature of himself.

Agreed about their Spiderman, he belongs more on a Disney live action program like girls meets world. Disney even watered down girls meets world compared to boys meets world that I grew up with but that did not stop the media from saying how all of us spiderman fans were angry he left the mcu and Sony is evil.

I don't know if you know this but spiderman 2002 made it into scorsese's 1000 movie lists.

[Desmark]

I wonder if Scorsese eventually directs a Kingpin flick what will be the reaction of the nerds.

[Beaddle]

I wonder if Scorsese eventually directs a Kingpin flick what will be the reaction of the nerds.

He will be better directing a x-men Gambit movie. this is the right movie for him because Gambit comes from a gansta mafia background. the only problem is Disney would never allow him to do it.

Scorsese is not the villain here, Disney is the villain. if tomorrow, scorsese says, let me direct a gambit movie. marvel comic fans will rejoice but Disney will tell him No. Now if it was DC that scorsese says, let me direct a league of assassins batman movie. dc would say go ahead and do whatever you want. same for Sony with Kingpin.

[Midvillian1322]

I wonder if Scorsese eventually directs a Kingpin flick what will be the reaction of the nerds.

I'd personaly love it. I dont think anyone is questing his talent.

But your posting on a Comicbook message board so calling people a Nerd is the pot calling the..... you know the rest.

@ Beddle

There you go again speaking for other people. You may think Disney would turn Scorsese away because of whatever baggage you carry but there is no evidence to that. Mahershela Ali came to them and said I want Blade and they bent over backwards to accommodate. Scorsese would just having to be willing to make a movie that fits in the MCU. If he wants self contained then DC would be a better fit at the moment.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Why are those themes seen as profound to ppl? Heroes becoming corrupt ,criminals getting away. They aren't those themes are just more mundane no more artistic than anything else. Maybe even less.

Because one refects life and one doesn't. Chinatown was an introspection of a flawed and jaded man trying to serve a higher purpose when a cause he believed in presented itself in his life and then the the systemic hierarchy that made him the way he was completely undermined and reinforced the original point he started at and he was forced to accept the tragedy of it. The Godfather was the examination of a man who was actively trying to escape the destiny his natural family had provided for him and ultimately found that he was actually well suited to that and lost himself to it. And that's just base line main character takes on the film. They are about human reflection and an insight into the structures of life.

A superhero film can never be that because the ultimate conceit is that you make something about the hero inately above humanity and that gives them their strength. Yes you can make the case that Tony Stark had a character journey as a jaded man to selfless hero. However his journey was the result of him being unrelatably intelligent to the point where he found himself in a savior position where he was able to realize that he alone had special abilities that could save the world and it was more of a matter of if he would choose that path. Superman has the same issue. Some of his best stories deal with his isolationism, but ultimately nobody can relate to that because higher calling is being Superman and that's what propells and resolves any conflict. Ultimately when the answer to every final conflict is "this is the hero, there's some power or desire him that will make him checkmate the conflict of the film (and even if you pull an Infinity Wars or Death of Superman, you are just delaying it). It's why the first Rocky is the best one. He flatout tells you he's not good enough to beat Creed (because in reality he shouldn't be) and all he really wants is to survive the beating and take the punishment at any cost because if he can do that he can at least justify that he's not a total bum. All the other films he's a superhero who is going to find the will to win no matter what because he has heart (his superpower). It just really doesn't say anything about life when the hero by virtue of being the hero is special enough to resolve the conflict. There's nothing someone you can take from that.

That's not to say they can't be well crafted films or be entertaining. But that's all they can every really be under that guise. It's why the stories that surpass the genre have tended to be things that suverted the tropes or used them in a different way. Watchmen made the heroes humans and made being a hero not very unique and ultimately the real heroes of the story were out manuevered by the smartest man in the world who had the backing of the most powerful man in the world and they had to find solace knowing that some things were just above them even if they weren't entirely ethical and the one guy who tried to fight the power paid a price. It's relateable and it says something about the human experience. Sometimes terrible things hold up massive institutions and ultimately that is bigger and more important than the individual. Or even something like DKR where ultimately Batman loses because he's not as powerful as the government and Superman but he does continue to fight and learns that he can find fulfillment in continuing his own little private war and leaving a legacy even if nothing comes of it in the end (which is more optimistic). **** even the Infitity Gauntlet storyline worked because it was about a guy who gained ultimate power but realized he wasn't worthy of it and ultimately sabotaged himself and found his own inner peace knowing he didn't deserve nor want to be chained with that burden. And that's not even an all time great story, but it's a good way to keep the trope of amazing powers but also have a real protagonist (antagonist) who can make an introspection that is worth thinking about.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The netflix shows had flawed heroes. The genre is fairly adaptable.

Outside the MCU, or outside Disney as in the case of Netflix, Sony, Fox and maybe Warner Bros. to some extent, sure maybe. But inside the MCU not so much.

Why are those themes seen as profound to ppl?

Because they speak to a reality. Most murders are unsolved, a lot of criminals get away with it, and if you're black and shot by a cop, any attempt to criticize the police or say they may have problems will get you nowhere. That's the reality and superhero stories as a rule don't speak to that reality. In Black Panther, the guy who speaks about that, Erik Killmonger is some war criminal who fought the Iraq War and is framed as a bad guy while the heroes, both in Black Panther and other MCU movies, are cops.

Heroes becoming corrupt ,criminals getting away. They aren't those themes are just more mundane no more artistic than anything else. Maybe even less.

Fact of the matter is that in the history of American mainstream cinema there was only a brief window stuff like that was allowed a mass audience and that was the generation of Scorsese's. Before that you had censorship, after that you had corporate owned and dominated studios which prevented content like that from having a wide audience.

I don't know if you know this but spiderman 2002 made it into scorsese's 1000 movie lists.

Really? Where is this? What's the source?

I wonder if Scorsese eventually directs a Kingpin flick what will be the reaction of the nerds.

He won't. Scorsese's Kingpin movie would be about Fisk killing Daredevil and then growing old and withered as he becomes a corrupt businessman who gets bought out either by the Chinese government or by Rupert Murdoch, Time Warner and become mergered and so lose his independence.

That won't be the movie that Marvel will ever allow to be made.

IF there's a comic book story that might tempt him, I think Scorsese could be tempted to do say, Triumph and Torment. He would love to do a Roger Corman gothic story, having a villain protagonist who's got a noble goal and a dark psychological story. But I doubt the MCU will ever do that, with or without Scorsese.

Scorsese is not the villain here, Disney is the villain. if tomorrow, scorsese says, let me direct a gambit movie. marvel comic fans will rejoice but Disney will tell him No. Now if it was DC that scorsese says, let me direct a league of assassins batman movie. dc would say go ahead and do whatever you want. same for Sony with Kingpin.

I don't know if Scorsese cares for this rivalry. In an interview about Joker, Scorsese said he could never get into that story since the end is Arthur Fleck becomes Joker, a comic book character as Scorsese called him. Which echoes similar statements made by Alan Moore who pointed out The Killing Joke never worked because in the end all it amounts to is a Batman and Joker story, who you will never encounter in real life.

Scorsese thinks superheroes as a whole don't allow a lot of freedom for film-makers.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You're intentionally overstating the reactions from Marvel. All Gunn did was post his response on Instagram (yes it was emotional but that is his right). Iger did not race bait at all (didn't even mention race, which Chadwick alluded to). Feige (like Scorsese) was asked a question and responded to it. You talk about a monologue, Scorsese is the one that wrote an entire op-ed.

You talk about Marvel fans being unable to let things go when Scorsese's the one who's chosen to respond to this thing five times after his initial statement. What was stopping Scorsese from saying "No comment. I said what I said" the second, third, fourth, and fifth time he was asked? If he said what he said, why did he need to write an op-ed in the NYT to 'explain' himself. Hell every headline about Scorsese has been about his opinion about Marvel movies instead of The Irishman.

Nobody needed Scorsese to say Marvel movies are great. Nobody needed Scorsese to explain his comment afterwards. We all got it. It was up to him whether or not this thing continued or not. He chose to keep talking about. And people can make of that what they will.

Scorsese was asked and then people got upset and it became a big story so he clarified and tried to explain his viewpoint while also making sure to acknowledge everyone involved in the MCU was talented. Feige tried to defend his films as being profound by using the justification that they had Captain America and Iron Man fight in one film and that they killed half the heroes in Infinity War as proof of it. He actually said that. I shouldn't have to explain why that's ridiculous and completely irrelevant to anything Scorsese said.

Yes Gunn did get emotional and Igor also did get emotional and I think it's kind of silly to ignore the obvious implications of him running to Black Panther to make his point because of what happens to everyone who has criticized Black Panther. Scorsese on the other hand was not emotional in any of his responses and didn't say something absurd like "my films are profound because in the Departed I killed protagonist in the climax" or some nonsense (which is funny because that's still bolder than anything Feige did).

So I would posit you're downplaying it and misrepresenting what Scorsese did. The rest of your post is effectively saying "Scorsese should stop talking about it when he's asked". Also sorry it's kind of in the bubble to think nobody is talking about the Irishman when talking about Scorsese. It's probably the hottest film at the moment and nearly everyone in film circles has been talking about it indepent of this silly MCU spiff which only gets brought up once in a while. This site isn't a good indicator since it it skews so heavily towards comic films an ignores most of the general non franchise output.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Frankly, I don't think Marvel Studios has anything to worry about from a noted filmmaker naysaying them. Their success speaks for itself, and I'm going to bet that it'll last for some time, like how we're still watching Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and other such blockbuster franchises years after the fact.

I think it's silly to think Marvel has anything to worry about. But it's also silly to think Scorsese was trying to give them something to worry about because he said he didn't care for them. However I will say that Jurassic Park and Star Wars still having films isn't neccessarily the best example to want Marvel to follow into because those franchises are never going to have the esteem they once did.

[Kirby101]

Eh, if you take away the level of sentimentality in his comments there is a core of truth present. The MCU is about form over substance. They are very comic-bookey, in other words, in every sense of the word as a pejorative.

You simply never get the big moments of the great directors in these films, to make you think or consider anything philosophical or deeply meaningful. To put it in terms that are, sadly, familiar considering the season - the MCU films are basically like Hallmark Channel Christmas movies for a broader audience but mostly for guys. To put it in 1980s teen film terms, they are Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, not the Breakfast Club.

B&TEA was infinately more deep than Breakfast Club. Breakfast Club was pure teen cliche with little originality.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Feige tried to defend his films as being profound by using the justification that they had Captain America and Iron Man fight in one film and that they killed half the heroes in Infinity War as proof of it. He actually said that. I shouldn't have to explain why that's ridiculous and completely irrelevant to anything Scorsese said.

Say what you want but Feige revealed that he really is a fan because that is totally a fanboy response. It's a little immature on Feige's part to say that kind of stuff and doesn't really make him sound like an "adult in the room".

Scorsese on the other hand was not emotional in any of his responses and didn't say something absurd like "my films are profound because in the Departed I killed protagonist in the climax" or some nonsense (which is funny because that's still bolder than anything Feige did).

Man I was around when The Departed came out, and there was so much ruckus and controversy about the hero getting killed...and not gloriously or heroically but just in the most sudden and random way. And many people felt cheated and so on. I mean The Departed is by Scorsese standards little more than above-average. It's not really among his very best movies. But by overall standards, it's a pretty gutsy and radical movie and does more stuff than Marvel does.

The equivalent of that is if Spider-Man ended with Peter bringing Harry Osborn to justice only to get shot in the head by a random mook and then Harry gives a speech about what a big hero Spidey is only for Mary Jane to call in a hit on Harry by giving evidence that Peter sent her to Flash Thompson who promptly whacks him.

[Agent Z]

I dont get why it has to be some conspiracy. Thor the Dark world was a Meh movie I feel the same about BvS( I like MoS more then Thor 2). But it's not like it's a couple random people on the internet the overall reaction towards Snyders movies in General was more negative then most CBMs. And people will come in and say dumb stuff like Marvel brainwashed people and bought critics off. But with the exception of Suicdie Squad all the DC movies not attached to Snyder have done well with Audiences and critics. Aquaman critical reception was a little lower but still not bad. Wonder Woman and Shazam got universal love. Theres alot of reasons imo the biggest being Superman and Batman are jsut gonna be held in a higher regard then Thor/Aquman/WW/Shazam etc.. Also both movies split the fan base. If it was just fan boys on the internet who were unhappy with the Snyder films WBs wouldnt have interfered the way they did and bring whedon in. It's really simple Thor 2 was not good but there was nothing controversial or offensive about it. It was a meh action flick and that's why Marvel let Waititi retool Thor and Ragnrok was a smash hit. There was artistic choices they made with Superman and Batman that people just didnt respond to. I personaly didnt have an issue with Supes Killing Zod but to pretend you wouldnt see why a chunk of the audience would be turned off by that in the first movie is silly. Fanboys cried about Batman killing but Critics and regular viewers seemed to find the movie Disnointed and boring from what I've seen. Kevin Smith has a Joke about watching BvS 20 times and each time he says " The movies gonna kick in now!... Now!...no Now!... and Credits". I dont think every MCU movie has been great but they have yet to make a movie that was offensively bad or controversial with the General Audience.

Too bring it back to something that's even slightly on topic Its all Art and it's all Cinema. I wont say anything else about BvS but MoS imo was well made and Snyder knows how to frame a shot. He made some weird Tonal choices but that's what makes it art. As far as overselling the hate. I haven't had many interactions with you but certain posters your agreeing with almost only post about MCU or Disney.

With Snyder you had people calling for the Reeves estate to sue him for defamation, a petition sent to the White House to have him removed from BvS, the rejoicing over his daughter's death and the fact that people can't seem to talk about a DC movie they enjoy without the need to take a shot at Snyder. And that's just the ugliness Snyder had to deal with. Gal Gadot and Amy Addams have had to deal with misogynistic and body shaming comments, the actresses who play Dinah and Cass on the upcoming Birds of Prey movie have already had to deal with revolting comments regarding race for the former and the latter's body. And there's the racism Anna Diop faced over being cast as Starfire. Hell, remember how Star Wars fans got in trouble for trying to make a pirated movie edit of the movie that removed the female characters? DC fans tried to do that with an edit of Man of Steel which cut out most of Lois' scenes.

Hardly anyone talks about this because DC/WB is viewed as an acceptable target no matter what they do.