Film Martin Scorsese - Marvel movies are 'not cinema'
- Thread starter Sweet Square
- Start date
What the... Was that at some kind of Marvel festival? Where do film watchers get that loud?!
(In addition to being that invested in freakin' Marvel movies.)
I hate it but also look on with some envy. I mean imagine being that excited about something. Like ever.
I just realized something... Marvel is basically a more successful version of WWE(World Wrestling Entertainment), targeted towards Gen Z and young Millennials! It all makes sense now...
Merka.
Last edited:
And the nerds will treat it as masterful storytelling.
Well, I didn't even know that was a thing.
I enjoy seeing films on my own in our local second-run cinema.
I know this is an unnecessary tangent but surely the Marvel franchise monster is about as far from nerdy as it's possible to get? It's not exactly intellectual and is utterly mainstream.
Edit: Surely they're just wankers?
who is this movie for ?
I'm never clicking on a link on this site again.
Also maybe this is impossible to discuss on the internet due to all the reactionary shite the internet contains but rise of this mainstream drag culture is easily one of the most annoying trends of the last few years. It has taken what was a very interesting and subversive culture and turn it into all about being a straight woman gay best friend(Which of course plays into stereotypes of both women and homosexual men)
Surely becoming mainstream is all part of becoming more normalised and widely accepted? Which is ultimately for the greater good.
That movie does look shit though.
Maybe but whats it's normalising, what is the audience it's targeting and what social roles is it challenging ? The film itself clearly isn't aimed at children, as it's yasss Queening all over the place and cinderella is now a girl boss. It's made by and for the same people - rich liberals, who are trying to suck out the last fumes of nostalgia from the exhaust pipe. But like even putting aside this dumb movie, the culture in general seems to put gay men into ultra feminine almost hysterical box and plays into misogynistic stereotypes of women. It's also pure individualism and consumerism(It's basically some form of progressive Thatcherism). It seems to be challenging the gender roles of the 1950's and actually if anything it's a culture that enforces the roles we have today.
And while I sort of get it(“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.'' “All that is solid melts into air'' blah blah capitalism is bad!) it's so artistically dog shit that it's a bit madden thats there's no push back on it.
Last edited:
Yes, I imagine she'll be given lots of creative control with The Marvels. Possibly even more than the independent debut they really liked.
Denis Villeneuve Says ‘Cut and Paste’ Marvel Movies Have ‘Turned Us Into Zombies’
People coming out swinging on behalf of a multi-billion dollar corporation who couldn't give a feck about them, all because some have the gall to criticize the movies they make.
Depressing as feck. Weirdos
Depressing as feck. Weirdos
I wonder how many directors are secretly in agreement with Scorsese on this.
'Consoomers'
Denis Villeneuve Says ‘Cut and Paste’ Marvel Movies Have ‘Turned Us Into Zombies’
I would imagine most of them - probably even some who have worked on the MCU.
For sure.
Most directors will have an artistic approach when it comes to making films, rather than a pure business mindset. While there are probably some weirdos who only got into film making for the money, I'm sure that the main thing that inspired most directors to pursue directing was the idea of creating something, with a high degree of autonomy. It's not like any of the current directors grew up watching the MCU either.
To be fair, Marvel do seem to be doing something about that — giving slightly more creative freedom & inviting independent directors but the inertia is huge. And the issue is, even when they stumble upon something (relatively) new and fresh they just copy it to death (see Gunn & Waititi). Or chicken out after a promising start and return to proven tropes like in WandaVision & Loki.
All their films are incredibly formated and I massively doubt these "fresher" directors have any control on the final cut. This increased creative freedom is an illusion and is not reflected at all in the final product.
Well, hence the "slightly". To be fair, Guardian of the Galaxy were quite fresh when they came out, as was Waititi's Thor (and both movies were very reflective of their directors) — the issue is that Marvel saw that it worked and decided to make 90% of their new movies by the same ethos... which, unsurprisingly, led to it becoming stale very soon (and even damaging the original movies in retrospect). As for directors not having any control? I think they do, at least Marvel are certainly more favourable towards their directors than DC is. But they obviously don't have anything close to full control & they're quite restrained by the big story that goes through all of the movies (which only Feige has real control of).
Ah the comics they're based off are kind of dictating a fair bit of stuff. They could have given more freedom in how the presented the world in each movie but the whole shared world aspect of them basically removes that from the individual directors. Directors have some control over dialogue and probably little else and even then there'll be a pile of bullet points they have to hit in the script. Its not much of a vehicle for directors.
Theres certainly some skill involved from someone, somewhere in a creative capacity. There's too much of a consistency of quality to marvel thats completely absent in the dc equivalents for there not to be.
I disagree that, beyond the specific brand of humour, any of Waititi's individuality transpired in Thor Ragnarok (which is one of my favourite Marvel films by the way). The overall "artistic" appearance of the film, the editing, the music, is all extremely similar to other Marvel films. But then again these directors certainly know what kind of framework they're going to be "creating" within, and accept it for the other perks associated - salary, global reach, being part of this universe that for better or for worse has dominated the cinematographic landscape these past 15 years.
But I don't believe a director fundamentally attached to his own vision, to his art, would accept to direct a film for Marvel.
That's the issue with comic book movies(and a big reason for why I generally dislike them). You are at least somewhat bound to the source material. You can try to add some grit. You can make up new character flaws to give the characters more depth. You can toss in some adult humor. But ultimately you still have a hero that you've seen many times before fighting an evil enemy and always coming out on top. Apart from tossing money at the problem, the only "interesting" thing Marvel has done is to offer the viewers a chance to see how the different superheroes were to interact if they met each other.
Isn't that true of virtually every action/adventure movie though?
It's true of all comic book movies or "franchise" action movies(James Bond for instance), but there used to be original action/adventure movies as well. In those movies you at least get something fresh and you don't really know what will happen next. Sure, happy endings are almost guaranteed even in originals. But with these comic book movies you are guaranteed a happy ending, which completely removes all real stakes.
I've actually watched many of these movies just because I enjoyed going to the cinema all the time and, well, you can't really escape them. The only one I watched and found really interesting in terms of what they did with it was Iron Man 3. I loved what they did with the Ben Kingsley character. The film wasn't great, to be fair, but I liked that aspect of it.
I then found out that all the Marvel heads hated that film and it's one of the most disliked movies in the franchise. Or at least it's incredibly divisive, which says a lot.
I then found out that all the Marvel heads hated that film and it's one of the most disliked movies in the franchise. Or at least it's incredibly divisive, which says a lot.
Also, I think the difference between these Marvel movies and something like, say, James Bond, is that while they both have protagonists that basically don’t (or can’t) die, with James Bond it’s very much a wink and a nod. You know he isn’t going to die, they know he isn’t going to die, so we’re on the same page. Part of the reason why so many enjoy them (and I don’t mind them - not a big fan) is thinking “well, how is he going to get out of this one”. You know full well he’s going to, it's just a matter of watching him do it. And again, it’s all very corny and tongue in cheek. They have changed that slightly with the modern ones and tried to introduce some peril and make it more serious, etc.(i think he does “technically” die in Casino Royale), but still - it’s James Bond.
But with Marvel, they ALWAYS try and up the peril. Like this is the worst thing that could possibly happen. There’s no way we’re getting out of this. The world is going to end and that’s that, folks. We’re fecked, there’s no way - oh, we won. And then the next movie in the franchise. Well, this is it now. You thought it was bad before, but this truly is the end. No joke, we’re definitely - oh, we won again. And on and on it goes. When you combine that with the fact that there's been about 500 Marvel movies in the last decade, it's easy to see why there's a lot of fatigue and criticism of the formula.
But with Marvel, they ALWAYS try and up the peril. Like this is the worst thing that could possibly happen. There’s no way we’re getting out of this. The world is going to end and that’s that, folks. We’re fecked, there’s no way - oh, we won. And then the next movie in the franchise. Well, this is it now. You thought it was bad before, but this truly is the end. No joke, we’re definitely - oh, we won again. And on and on it goes. When you combine that with the fact that there's been about 500 Marvel movies in the last decade, it's easy to see why there's a lot of fatigue and criticism of the formula.