Look at the difference in original or new films in those lists between 80’s and 90’s and now. That’s the biggest issue for me. New ideas being squeezed out.
Film Martin Scorsese - Marvel movies are 'not cinema'
- Thread starter Sweet Square
- Start date
Even the difference between the 2000's and 2010's is pretty significant.
The 2000's has 3 originals, 2 LOTR films(which are part of a risky trilogy, as the fantasy genre did really poorly before LOTR) and a sequel to a new original(Shrek 2). The most original thing about the 2010 list is The Incredibles 2, and that was a completely unnecessary sequel made long after the first one.
Franchises, Reboots, Sequels, Prequels etc. are now King. While Marvel certainly accelerated that trend they didn't start it. Movie studios goal is to make money primarily like any business and they react to trends and whatever audiences want to see which will ultimately make money. If you look at the box office lists Sweet Square posted the trend started in the 2000's with arguably only one or two movies in the top 10 that didn't have existing fan bases and/or were based on well known characters/properties.
I think the medium is changing and the lines between Movies and big budget TV will continue to blur as we move further into the world of streaming services.
I cant really tell the difference between the lists Sweet Square posted at a glance. I get that Beverly Hills Cop is technically a new, original property and it supports your point ... but I dont feel that inclined to mourn its loss or it being replaced by Black Panther. Interesting discussion all the same.
The point is that it wasn't 90% the same studio and 80% variations on the same thing.
Yeah was looking at it on my phone, just noticed the long line of Disney for the last decade. Their monopoly on the industry and of so many American cultural icons looks a pretty big problem, especially in this time where franchises are so significant.
I'm being a bit pedantic with his list i think - if he put up the list for the 70's or the 60's i feel like they'd be drastically stronger and a time when hollywood was genuinely great. Looking at the 80's and seeing Star Wars, Indiana Jones, a Spielberg film and a cop buddy film which were bloody everywhere at the time just feels meh. I'm not nostalgic for that time, Marvel and so on just feel a natural extension of that. Didn't they make like 5 Beverly Hills Cops or something crazy?
Overall I'm not especially interested or knowledgeable about the finance side of the movie industry and dont think its relevant to a discussion on cinema as art (disney's monopoly probably is, i haven't really thought about that). Pretty much everything on each list would be a stretch to call art imo.
James Gunn getting his panties in a bunch over it now. He was speaking on some podcast about it and said this:
I'm not saying that Scorsese is above marketing his own movies, but to suggest he only made those comments becuase of that is pretty absurd. He really got under the skin of these guys.
I'm not saying that Scorsese is above marketing his own movies, but to suggest he only made those comments becuase of that is pretty absurd. He really got under the skin of these guys.
Disney will be the death of cinema. They're an extremely efficient machine churning out lots of money-making crap.
He's since commented frther:
I don't think that Scorsese meant that films based on comic books aren't cinema? I think what Marvel is doing goes a little beyond that. Comic book movies have existed for a very long time.
Yeah, I saw the Tweet.
Doesn't take away from the fact that what he said was ridiculous. Also, he's misrepresenting what Scorsese said. He's a bit of an arse anyway, is Gunn.
Correct. He's praised Burtons Batman before and spoken about Raimi's Spider-Man movies. He was just commenting on Marvel movies.
That's semantics. Obviously Gunn means films like his.
It's not obvious for people who don't know the full story. There is a huge difference between "Marvel is not cinema" and "comic book movies are not cinema". Out of context, I kind of agree with the first one(while still finding it a bit harsh). The second one makes Scorsese sound very ignorant.
I'm usually chill about these things, but it's not like James Gunn is being misquoted by the media here. He(or whoever controls his Twitter) can frame Scorsese's quote any way they want. And they still chose to misrepresent him.
That "sequels in name but remakes in spirit" criticism is very accurate.
James Gunn is Marvel's Ronald McDonald. That James and Zach have become household names and desirable directors in the eyes of movie goers is symptomatic of the decay of Cinema. His words on Scorsese and Marvel make Scorsese's argument better than Scorsese's original comments. Gunn is an idiot so maybe he doesn't get the point, but he's also a cynical, half-talented corporate slob director, so maybe it's just crafty marketing, knowing that his fans - who have shown an incapacity to grasp the nuance of the argument - will eat it up.
Because Gunn and the like have already won, regardless of any detractors. Audiences have chosen Shit Culture, and any argument from Aesthetics, or any lecture from a film custodian, must be consigned to lamentation. The Machine continues to gobble up any and all instances of quality and integrity to crap out as manure for their soulless produce.
All is lost. Stop crying, you won.
Because Gunn and the like have already won, regardless of any detractors. Audiences have chosen Shit Culture, and any argument from Aesthetics, or any lecture from a film custodian, must be consigned to lamentation. The Machine continues to gobble up any and all instances of quality and integrity to crap out as manure for their soulless produce.
All is lost. Stop crying, you won.
Great post
This image of a senile Scorsese stumbling over his argument is all a part of the game to these peddlers of Shit Culture, who will happily trample over anything to gain a tiddly marketing edge. Scorsese knows Cinema better than any of us and he knows his argument. His words should have been heeded. But of course they weren't, as the philistine horde gleefully marched us all into the corporate thresher.
@dumbo is basically a modern day Shakespeare.
Dumbo's last few posts on the caf overall have been pure <insert fire emojis>!
That's cool. I just wish it wasn't always the animus that sparked me.
Them two things - finance side and "current state of the movie game" - is keenly related.
Long story short, the current state of things is due mainly to three things (in no particular order): 1. Final removal of original studio heads' influence*, 2. "wall-street" financing of movies (see below quoted post with comments regarding 'market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified'), 3. the streaming/digital era causing havoc in the ancillary rights (DVD, TV broadcast licensing) markets - which effectively killed the mid-range picture - and the rise of widespread gaming taking over the "eyeball time" of the youth.
*a long, long time ago and up until about the year 2000, the major studos tried to out-Oscar each other each year, bankrolling their 'Awards season' pics with twelve to sixteen 'commercial' projects. The studio heads were often at the very least moderately creatively competent, being veterans of vaudeville/amusements/entertainment etc. These guys and gals' direct influence lasted until around the 60s. Then their successors had some time until the 80s. During the 90s, wall street finance started taking over and having more and more influence over the 'creative' process.
That "sequels in name but remakes in spirit" criticism is very accurate.
He's actually pretty talented, which is part of the problem not just in film or art, but in larger society as well: the previously locally-isolated sort of penultimate strata of intelligence finding widespread support; a side effect of exploding population and interconnectivity allowing for channels of positive reinforcement that such never really had before. The tragic downside is that this means the people much smarter than said stratum get crowded out.
It's like a doctor who's used to being called smart and having their ass kissed by 90% of the population unable to realize or accept that he or she is way out of his/her depth if a Von Neumann-level intellect comes along. And it's not the doctor's fault. He/she is literally simply 'too stupid' to understand what the other person is saying.
So in a sad way, it's not Gunn's fault.
I really hate the era of cinema we live in.
I just finished watching some great films on Netflix, and nowadays we have nothing of the sort/quality regularly being released in cinema.
For the past month I managed to watch:
Schindlers list
American Psycho
Sleepers
Cape Fear
Prisoners
Falling Down
The last Samurai
And probably a few more I can't remember.
It's just not the same anymore. It's all about mass appeal and selling merchandise these days. Films that actually try to be a film are few and far between these days.
Maybe I wrote my message incorrectly, but I hope people here know what I mean.
I just finished watching some great films on Netflix, and nowadays we have nothing of the sort/quality regularly being released in cinema.
For the past month I managed to watch:
Schindlers list
American Psycho
Sleepers
Cape Fear
Prisoners
Falling Down
The last Samurai
And probably a few more I can't remember.
It's just not the same anymore. It's all about mass appeal and selling merchandise these days. Films that actually try to be a film are few and far between these days.
Maybe I wrote my message incorrectly, but I hope people here know what I mean.
I know exactly what you mean. 9 out of 10 times I just find myself rewatching older movies.
I get what you are saying, but you have picked some fantastic movies over a broad period of time there. Last couple of years we have had some great films too, I'm sure in 10 years time people will be looking back and adding more from this period to a long list of greats.
I simply can't understand why people so, I can only assume, wilfully misinterpret Scorsese's comments as some sort of cultural elitism.
The same company dominates cinema, in an entirely unprecedented manner, making identikit cut and paste movies (some of which are decent) crushing all meaningful competition with a homogenous and controlled aesthetic to such an extent that mainstream cinema is unrecognisable and he's a reactionary "old man (shouting) at clouds"?
It is not elitist to appreciate creativity and diversity.
The same company dominates cinema, in an entirely unprecedented manner, making identikit cut and paste movies (some of which are decent) crushing all meaningful competition with a homogenous and controlled aesthetic to such an extent that mainstream cinema is unrecognisable and he's a reactionary "old man (shouting) at clouds"?
It is not elitist to appreciate creativity and diversity.
I'm honestly tired of the superhero movies and tv shows that are popping up everywhere. Feels like almost 1 in 2 big production movies and shows are some form of superhero stuff. And 90% of them follow the same formula and arc. The analogy of serious literature vs comics is spot on.
As long as people watch it, these companies will keep churning them out like it's going out of sale. The silver lining is that it's forcing me to read books instead of watching the latest shows on Netflix.
As long as people watch it, these companies will keep churning them out like it's going out of sale. The silver lining is that it's forcing me to read books instead of watching the latest shows on Netflix.
It's amazing that Scorcese said this ages ago and fans of these "things" are still getting up in arms about it today.
That's how you know he touched a nerve and told the truth
That's how you know he touched a nerve and told the truth
He really did get under their skin. The thing is, most of them only seen snippets of what he said and didn't even bother to engage with it on an intellectual level. And I doubt very much that they read his NYT article on the subject, because if they did, they wouldn't come out with shit like James Gunn did. Implying that he was doing it merely as a cynical tactic for marketing his own movie. It's Scorses for feck sake, he doesn't have to drum up attention for his movie by creating some fake outrage. If you ever heard the man speak about movies he's always honest and passionate about them.
And this coming from James-fecking-Gunn. The only reason people know of him is because his movies have the Marvel label slapped on the front of them.
I can't believe that Scorsese wants to put all Marvel fans in concentration camps! He also thinks that there should be no more holidays and that doggystyle should be outlawed.
I don't even know who James Gunn is and highly doubt he will be remembered as one of the greatest directors and visionarys of our time
Reddit seems to think it's deliberate and creative genius. "Chaos and mischief" puke.
I think it's evidence of carbon copy shite, having rigid formulae to stick to and feck all ideas.
The subreddit r/movies is the absolute worst at overhyping mediocre crap.
Reddit seems to think it's deliberate and creative genius. "Chaos and mischief" puke.
I think it's evidence of carbon copy shite, having rigid formulae to stick to and feck all ideas.
For some reason this reminds me of the monster energy drink lady
Reddit seems to think it's deliberate and creative genius. "Chaos and mischief" puke.
I think it's evidence of carbon copy shite, having rigid formulae to stick to and feck all ideas.
Last edited:
I'd have to leave that cinema, I'd start slapping people otherwise.