Film Martin Scorsese - Marvel movies are 'not cinema'

I really don't like the newer superhero movies.

The early 00s had the best ones. Spider-Man (Toby Maguire >), first two Batman films and X-Men trilogy were peak superhero movies. Since then, they've largely been rubbish. Especially Spider-Man, which pains me to say as he's my fave.
 
Winter soldier is a fantastic movie and proof that marvel movies arent all the same
 
I am a Fantasy nerd but these Marvel movies are so bland and soulless. No idea why they became such a big thing.
 
I get his point, but 'cinema' would be a boring, dry place without that genre and similiar.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
It's lesser cinema because it tends to be lesser cinema. I doubt Scorcesee would say this if a good portion of superhero films tried to do what The Dark Knight did, for example. Also, I don't think people should take him as literally as they are. I'm guessing he also believes Dude, where's my car isn't 'proper cinema'? Is it cinema, yes. But it's not cinema cinema in the way that Scorcesee is looking at it. Just like Marvel movies really arent. They're generic popcorn flicks and I imagine be doesn't really feel those are proper films in his eyes.
Click to expand...

That isn’t really my point though (I personally don’t care for much of the genre either - I just care for old man nostalgia a lot less!) it’s whether he’d likely consider or describe other disposable genres that he was more au fait with, or was younger when then they were prominent - like Westerns or Musicals - similarly. My guess is he wouldn’t... And I don’t personally see the difference between them. In 70 years time they’re not gonna have an asterisk beside them, denoting them as a separate endeavour. It’ll be considered simply a genre like everything else...Shakespeare was disposable pop entertainment at one point, yadayadayada...

Also he’s spent a huge amount of his career making gangster films, which also have a pretty similar hit rate of “art to shite”... there’s no real objective reason why it should be considered an inherently more worthy genre, if that’s the criteria...

70 year old white men are liable to be fogeys now and again. It’s fine.
 
Last edited:
Mockney said:
That isn’t really my point though (I personally don’t care for much of the genre either) it’s whether he’d likely consider or describe other disposable genres that he was more au fait with, or was younger when then they were prominent - like Westerns or Musicals - similarly. My guess is he wouldn’t... And I don’t personally see the difference between them. In 70 years time they’re not gonna have an asterisk beside them, denoting them as a separate endeavour. It’ll be considered simply a genre like everything else...

Also he’s spent a huge amount of his career making gangster films, which also have a pretty similar hit rate of “art to shite”... there’s no real objective reason why it should be considered an inherently more worthy genre, if that’s the criteria...

70 year old white men are liable to be fogeys now and again. It’s fine.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Although, I personally have to say I have seen many crime/gangster films I'll classify as top notch film making. And while to an extent I casually enjoy superhero films, there's very very few (maybe 2 or so) I'd genuinely rate as excellent cinema. The level of story telling and acting display is usually at a pretty low level. Then again, there's been a lot more crime/gangster films in the history of cinema so you're possibly right about the ratio bit and it's more to do with the lower volume of superhero films (historically speaking)?

I do feel the academy and the likes' attitudes towards genre's like science fiction and comedy has been particularly poor. A film like Blade Runner 2048 deserved to be revered much more than it was. Musicals the other hand are laughably overrated as some deeper art form. So I agree with you on these things for sure.
 
Musicals are even worse, they shouldn't even be mentioned as movies.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
I do feel the academy and the likes' attitudes towards genre's like science fiction and comedy has been particularly poor. A film like Blade Runner 2048 deserved to be revered much more than it was.
Click to expand...

And before the likes of 2001 or Solaris, Sci Fi was an even more looked down upon disposable B movie genre... Proper Ed Wood stuff. Superhero films are already way above what they were in the 50s & 60s. But Marty doesn’t think of it like that ‘cos he was part of a generation of filmmakers who started making “proper” sci-fi, like.... Star Wars and E.T??
 
Comic book and superhero movies are like any other genre of film. Some are good. Some are not. You don't have to like them, but to dismiss them as not being cinema is incredibly snobby.

Likewise, music is music whether it's top 40 mass market pop, or otherwise. You can think its shit, but it doesn't mean it isn't music.

Marvel films generally tick the boxes for family entertainment, where they appeal to both adults and children simultaneously. That's a valuable market, as most will know that going to the cinema with a child can be pretty tedious if you're sitting through some shit like Cars 2.
 
He's right.
Most fans assosiate the depth of the characters with the conic books they've read so little of that is on screen and it just sets up set piece after set piece.
A quip here and there means Ironman and Spiderman are best friends, no questions asked. It becomes a cliché, cartoon friendship
 
ivaldo said:
Thats relative. More people like Marvel films than some niche subtitled bullshit that seeks to explore the effects of capitalism on global warming.
Click to expand...

No one said the latter is the definition of real cinema, other than you, in attempt to be a snob to other people you deem snobs. Scorcese definitely didn't, and his volume of work doesn't remotely fit the description either. He isn't saying that unless it's a Tarkovsky film it's not cinema. He likes lots of Hollywood stuff across the generations too. He's saying there's something you can find even in blockbuster films that you can't find in superhero films. And he describes what that is, in simple terms, in this very short comment that you've decided to read so much into.

I think this elaborates on the difference quite well too:

HTG said:
It's alright to like those movies, Scorsese never said otherwise. But there is something deeply unsettling about those movies, their immense success, the company behind it and the nearly complete lack of reflection around those movies. There is nothing wrong with escapism, it's human nature. But that people fail to understand these movies as quite problematique in regards to what is actually happening, how it's completely and in the most superficial way brought down to the smallest common denominator and most of all, as Scorsese hinted at, when he talked about theme parks (I mean it's Disney, come on), is more of an extended commercial for its own characters than an actual movie. The characters serve no other purpose but to be sold. If Iron Man is on the screen, there is nothing happening with this figure, other than an image being sold.
These movies are basically no more than extended commercials, that are really well done. And if I understood Scorsese correctly, he thinks the same. And in his opinion, that's not what cinema should be about. Nobody has to share this opinion, but it's as valid as it is subjective. To get mad about such a statement, feels really odd to me. If you enjoy it, I don't know why you would be bothered as much by such a statement. It's just someones opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Hmmm... They're not very good despite the mass following. I think they ought to be fun at the very least but most of them seem to be the same old same old. I'm actually surprised how successful they've become. That said I loved Deadpool and Guardians too (after rewatching them...).

Then again if it sells why change the formula...eh money men?? Can't wait for more Star Wars and all.
 
Woody Allen films after the '90s are mostly shite but I would never say they are not movies or that they are not cinema.

What has enraged people is that he said "Marvel movies are NOT cinema"; that line is beyond snobbish: it's the subjective rant that because you don't like a particular subgenre or franchise, you are entitled to deny its existence as a valid entry of cinema as a whole. I strongly dislike most of David Lynch's movies, and I think they often break quite brutally the "classic" rules of cinema, but I would never say "it's not cinema".

Marvel movies are not comic books, Marvel movies are not videogames: Marvel movies are...movies. Period.
 
Casanova85 said:
Woody Allen films after the '90s are mostly shite but I would never say they are not movies or that they are not cinema.

What has enraged people is that he said "Marvel movies are NOT cinema"; that line is beyond snobbish: it's the subjective rant that because you don't like a particular subgenre or franchise, you are entitled to deny its existence as a valid entry of cinema as a whole. I strongly dislike most of David Lynch's movies, and I think they often break quite brutally the "classic" rules of cinema, but I would never say "it's not cinema".

Marvel movies are not comic books, Marvel movies are not videogames: Marvel movies are...movies. Period.
Click to expand...
Don‘t you think Scorsese is aware of that technicality? Don’t you think he might have been hinting at something else?
 
HTG said:
Don‘t you think Scorsese is aware of that technicality? Don’t you think he might have been hinting at something else?
Click to expand...

Who knows. He probably was honest. He could have said "ehh...nah, I can see why they are so popular, grand spectacle on the big screen, but it's not my thing". He opted to say "They are not cinema" instead.
 
Casanova85 said:
Who knows. He probably was honest. He could have said "ehh...nah, I can see why they are so popular, grand spectacle on the big screen, but it's not my thing". He opted to say "They are not cinema" instead.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if you read the full quote, he did so clearly with subtext in his mind. I find it quite odd that people don’t seem to think Scorsese wouldn’t understand that fact. He obviously does. To get angry at a technicality like that is just ridiculous.
 
HTG said:
Don‘t you think Scorsese is aware of that technicality? Don’t you think he might have been hinting at something else?
Click to expand...
Yeah some people are taken Scorsese literally, which would make him a moron because the Marvel films do in fact play in a building called a cinema(Are trailers, adverts and the video telling people to turn off their phones before a film starts also cinema ?). But thats clearly not what he's talking about.

Although there are really only two camps someone can fall into

1)Literally everything is art and just as meaningful as anything else(Or alternatively but still the same - nothing is art and its all meaningless). There is no distinction between This Morning segment on someone 300 pound husband and The Acent by Larisa Shepitko. Both are equal works to humanity and to say otherwise is well being a bit of a snob.

2)There is a distinction.


I tend to fall into the second group but only because it means I can slag off that sliver hair prick Schofield.
 
Last edited:
HTG said:
Yeah, but if you read the full quote, he did so clearly with subtext in his mind. I find it quite odd that people don’t seem to think Scorsese wouldn’t understand that fact. He obviously does. To get angry at a technicality like that is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's not a technicality. It's a harsh subjective claim. "It's NOT cinema" (and then he elaborated on that). Same old attitude, from Sinatra verbally abusing Elvis' music and Dean Martin dissing the Rolling Stones to Scorsese denying any cinematic value of the 25 billion dollar run of the MCU. What Scorsese implied is that MCU "non films" should not be even played at movie theatres, for the "sake" of "true" cinema.
 
Casanova85 said:
It's not a technicality. It's a harsh subjective claim. "It's NOT cinema" (and then he elaborated on that). Same old attitude, from Sinatra verbally abusing Elvis' music and Dean Martin dissing the Rolling Stones to Scorsese denying any cinematic value of the 25 billion dollar run of the MCU. What Scorsese implied is that MCU "non films" should not be even played at movie theatres, for the "sake" of "true" cinema.
Click to expand...
Of course it is a technicality, because it's obviously a subjective claim based on his personal emotional view of what cinema is supposed to be for him. He's well aware that Marvel movies are in fact cinema. He just doesn't like them. He's also hinting why he thinks like this, with the theme park comment and so makes an obvious connection to Disney.
So instead of getting riled up over a technicality that doesn't matter, it might make more sense to actually consider what he really meant. And I have no idea why the box office of those movies bears any relevance.
 
Sweet Square said:
Yeah some people are taken Scorsese literally, which would make him a moron because the Marvel films do in fact play in a building called a cinema(Are trailers, adverts and the video telling people to turn off their phones before a film starts also cinema ?). But thats clearly not what he's talking about.

Although there are really only two camps someone can fall into

1)Literally everything is art and just as meaningful as anything else(Or alternatively but still the same - nothing is art and its all meaningless). There is no distinction between This Morning segment on someone 300 pound husband and The Acent by Larisa Shepitko. Both are equal works to humanity and to say otherwise is well being a bit of a snob.

2)There is a distinction.


I tend to fall into the second group but only because it means I can slag off that sliver hair prick Schofield.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree.
To be honest, I think this whole debate boils down to people being incredibly insecure about any kind of criticism towards the art they like, because they are afraid to be perceived as dumb, thus they lash out. The whole debate wouldn't happen, if people were just able to enjoy the things they like, without this desperate need to have their opinion validated by each and every person in the world. Just enjoy it and if someone else doesn't, let them.
 
ThatsGreat said:
Are movies meant to educate, or to entertain?
Click to expand...

I don't think educate is the right word but I get you. IMO movies should have an actual idea to them, a vision, right or wrong - obviously Disney movies don't really do that.

But yeah, movies should (hopefully) entertain as much as they explore that idea (whatever it may be). It's why some movies can suck even if you understand what they were aiming for.
 
Last edited:
HTG said:
Of course it is a technicality, because it's obviously a subjective claim based on his personal emotional view of what cinema is supposed to be for him. He's well aware that Marvel movies are in fact cinema. He just doesn't like them. He's also hinting why he thinks like this, with the theme park comment and so makes an obvious connection to Disney.
So instead of getting riled up over a technicality that doesn't matter, it might make more sense to actually consider what he really meant. And I have no idea why the box office of those movies bears any relevance.
Click to expand...


Your opinion. He clearly stated he doesn't consider the MCU as "cinema".
 
I'm all for some dumb mindless entertainment once in a while but these superhero movies can't even satisfy me with that. Just feel like a waste of time. They don't do it for me.

I mean, Speed (1994) is dumb entertainment too but I'll watch the shit out of that all day long.
 
must be cool to be famous as well as old as feck and just say whatever random shit you like and not give a feck :lol:

that said, he's being a bit of an old fogie here isn't he? There's always been generic popular shite in the cinema, but great films still get made. The big studios aren't funding the innovative stuff.

I preferred it when the big budget films were all disaster flicks, but they were just as unoriginal and formulaic as the superhero stuff, if not more so.
 
Casanova85 said:
Woody Allen films after the '90s are mostly shite but I would never say they are not movies or that they are not cinema.

What has enraged people is that he said "Marvel movies are NOT cinema"; that line is beyond snobbish: it's the subjective rant that because you don't like a particular subgenre or franchise, you are entitled to deny its existence as a valid entry of cinema as a whole. I strongly dislike most of David Lynch's movies, and I think they often break quite brutally the "classic" rules of cinema, but I would never say "it's not cinema".

Marvel movies are not comic books, Marvel movies are not videogames: Marvel movies are...movies. Period.
Click to expand...

People keep using the word 'snob' and I'm a bit confused about why it's taken as bad by default. It's basically saying people have higher standards, which is fair enough.

The only bad snobs tend to be the delusional ones, not the ones who have genuinely interesting ideas that they put into practice.
 
Vidyoyo said:
I don't think educate is the right word but I get you. IMO movies should have an actual idea to them, a vision, right or wrong - obviously Disney movies don't really do that.

But yeah, movies should (hopefully) entertain as much as they explore that idea (whatever it may be). It's why some movies can suck even if you understand what they were aiming for.
Click to expand...
Marvel films do explore ideas though. Just like Star Wars does, Marvel has a central theme of good vs evil. They captivate, they make people identify with the characters. I mean Goodfellas shows the innerworking of the criminal underworld, thats as far removed from normal life as say an alien invasion. People were cheering Capt America on, they were moved to tears when Iron Man sacrifices himself, they clearly identified with the fantastic storylines. I think Scorcese does a disservice to people when he starts to dictate what their imagination should be limited to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.