Prestige directors views on the MCU and comic book movies

[mace11]

I wonder why there is no talk about Martin Scorsese fatigue for example since most or all his recent 200+ million budget movies are flopping.
Why are his movies are costing so much if they don't have alot action and cgi?
Could anybody answer that?

[kingaliencracker]

Streaming has had more of an impact for theaters and the box office than CBM. If anything, CBM and similar tentpole films are keeping theaters afloat.

Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and others killed the DVD market, then invested in movies and shows the bigger studios were turning down. Movies like the ones Scorsese, Tarantino, and similar make are now being made regularly on streaming platforms, with half the budget. Why pay $20 or more to see one movie in the theater when you can pay that amount a month and see shows/movies unlimited?

[JBatmanFan05]

Scorcese takes his remarks too far, but I understand and agree with a lot of the rough perhaps core gist of what he seems to think: (a Forbes article excerpt)

I understand the vague, idealized impression Scorsese is talking about, where visionary filmmakers and storytellers get however much funding they need to tell serious, important stories about what they consider real people and real human conflicts, driven by character and dialogue so that these people and their stories are what drive the experience, as opposed to purely visual thrills and simpler appeals to base emotional reactions. The premise is, all of the money going to big-budget films could instead go to more worthy artistic pursuits not driven by things like IP or studio notes or selling merchandise and maintaining a franchise or spinoff or tie-in.
. . .
The problem is getting funding and theatrical distribution for any sort of film project, regardless of genre — those are things where branded IP and/or being famous matter and overshadow new original unknown stories and artists.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...h=298a87356a89

[Pinsir]

So you don’t know either. Got it.

I am being earnest with my answer, that is how a lot of creators view 'art'. If you want a more tangible answer, I'd say its about producing a piece of entertainment that is primarily creative driven. Where writers, directors and special effects artists can perform their craft with minimal interference from corporate. I think the issue Scorsese has with Marvel, even if he doesn't know the players involved, is that it feels more corporate driven than creator driven.

Producers have a role to play in the process sure, but when a director says that the movie they worked on is Kevin Fiege's...we got a problem. Whereas Thor Ragnorok, the GotG trilogy, Black Panther, Snyder's DC films and Wonder Woman feel very creator driven. I mean Barbie, the character herself, is as corporate as they come, but the creators of the film were given the berth to create 'art' (or so they say, haven't seen it yet).

[Sutekh]

Cinema is like the Tao, our words fail to describe its ineffable nature. It can only be known through intuition and experience.

Old lady from Monty Python, "I don't know much about art, but I do know what I like!" <takes another bite out of a Manet.>

[HollowSage]

Old lady from Monty Python, "I don't know much about art, but I do know what I like!" <takes another bite out of a Manet.>

That about covers it. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone can tell you something they like is art. It’s impossible to prove them wrong.

[HollowSage]

I am being earnest with my answer, that is how a lot of creators view 'art'. If you want a more tangible answer, I'd say its about producing a piece of entertainment that is primarily creative driven. Where writers, directors and special effects artists can perform their craft with minimal interference from corporate. I think the issue Scorsese has with Marvel, even if he doesn't know the players involved, is that it feels more corporate driven than creator driven.

Producers have a role to play in the process sure, but when a director says that the movie they worked on is Kevin Fiege's...we got a problem. Whereas Thor Ragnorok, the GotG trilogy, Black Panther, Snyder's DC films and Wonder Woman feel very creator driven. I mean Barbie, the character herself, is as corporate as they come, but the creators of the film were given the berth to create 'art' (or so they say, haven't seen it yet).

That all sounds good if you assume only certain people can be creative or create “art”. Kevin Feige went to film school just like many of the directors he has worked with. Is he any less creative because he’s the boss?

James Gunn is now co-head of DC’s movie division. Has he lost his creative bonafides now that he has a corporate gig?

[numberthirty]

I am being earnest with my answer, that is how a lot of creators view 'art'. If you want a more tangible answer, I'd say its about producing a piece of entertainment that is primarily creative driven. Where writers, directors and special effects artists can perform their craft with minimal interference from corporate. I think the issue Scorsese has with Marvel, even if he doesn't know the players involved, is that it feels more corporate driven than creator driven.

Producers have a role to play in the process sure, but when a director says that the movie they worked on is Kevin Fiege's...we got a problem. Whereas Thor Ragnorok, the GotG trilogy, Black Panther, Snyder's DC films and Wonder Woman feel very creator driven. I mean Barbie, the character herself, is as corporate as they come, but the creators of the film were given the berth to create 'art' (or so they say, haven't seen it yet).

Someone should go on ahead, and hip him to that it is called show business for a reason.

[Pinsir]

That all sounds good if you assume only certain people can be creative or create “art”. Kevin Feige went to film school just like many of the directors he has worked with. Is he any less creative because he’s the boss?

James Gunn is now co-head of DC’s movie division. Has he lost his creative bonafides now that he has a corporate gig?

As a producer he undoubtedly has a role to play in the creation of films, but I think Kevin Fiege has overstepped his role and we have a director saying as much. Kevin Fiege certainly does want to create 'art' as he has claimed that Marvel movies are being shut out of the Academy Awards and he thought the Eternals was going to be his ticket into a best picture nomination (Producers are the ones that receive the Oscar for Best Picture). I just don't think he can at the moment.

Something I remember saying years ago, is that the reason why a lot of MCU films feel inauthentic is largely because they are 'sexless' (with exception to the time of GotG 1, a good MCU film). Industry writers eventually caught on to what I was saying and said the same thing. Well, Eternals made a big deal about it having the first 'sex scene' because, in Fiege's mind, that made it a serious film. Fiege knows his films aren't (or mostly aren't) 'cinema' and even though his films have made billions, he still resents that aspect of his work.

[Pinsir]

Someone should go on ahead, and hip him to that it is called show business for a reason.

That argument was fine to make back in 2019 when times were good, but less convincing now that superhero movies seem to be dead weight. Killers of the Flower Moon and Captain Marvel 2 may both turn out to be box office bombs, but people are probably going to be watching the former years to come, and generating revenue doing so, because it's a well regarded film.

[numberthirty]

That argument was fine to make back in 2019 when times were good, but less convincing now that superhero movies seem to be dead weight. Killers of the Flower Moon and Captain Marvel 2 may both turn out to be box office bombs, but people are probably going to be watching the former years to come, and generating revenue doing so, because it's a well regarded film.

Yeah...

I'm sure that Fraser's performance will age well.

[HollowSage]

As a producer he undoubtedly has a role to play in the creation of films, but I think Kevin Fiege has overstepped his role and we have a director saying as much.

Edgar Wright walked away from Ant-Man because he thought the same. However many other directors have had a lot of success working within the Marvel system. It’s a collaborative creative process but it’s not for everyone. Directors who want more control over that process are free to turn down Marvel’s offer just like Wright.

At this point I don’t think there is anyone who doesn’t know what they are signing up for.

[Scott Taylor]

Scorcese takes his remarks too far, but I understand and agree with a lot of the rough perhaps core gist of what he seems to think: (a Forbes article excerpt)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...h=298a87356a89

Man that article was low-key brutal to Scorcese. They practically call him an old white man hypocrite just using a lot more words.

[Valentis]

I am being earnest with my answer, that is how a lot of creators view 'art'. If you want a more tangible answer, I'd say its about producing a piece of entertainment that is primarily creative driven. Where writers, directors and special effects artists can perform their craft with minimal interference from corporate. I think the issue Scorsese has with Marvel, even if he doesn't know the players involved, is that it feels more corporate driven than creator driven.

Producers have a role to play in the process sure, but when a director says that the movie they worked on is Kevin Fiege's...we got a problem. Whereas Thor Ragnorok, the GotG trilogy, Black Panther, Snyder's DC films and Wonder Woman feel very creator driven. I mean Barbie, the character herself, is as corporate as they come, but the creators of the film were given the berth to create 'art' (or so they say, haven't seen it yet).

I stumbled across a Grace Randolph tweet today. Grace said the director of The Marvels was not around when the film went into post production. You can't make this **** up. How is a director not around during post production of the movie they are supposed to be directing? corporate driven is too nice of a word to explain these films.

[Valentis]

Grace Randolph Tweet.

@GraceRandolph
''Nia DaCosta did a good job defusing the story of her not being there for all of post production.

But it’s still rare for the director of a $250m film to not be there in person to steer the ship, especially so early in their career.

If the film does well, no problem. If it doesn’t, other people associated with the film will likely use this against her and to clear themselves of blame''.


MCU is indirectly trying to sabotage this woman's career before it flourishes. An African American director for that matter. it makes me kind of mad