Obviously there are too many superhero movies and a lot of them are gash and just repetitive fare, but there are also some great ones providing some quality light hearted entertainment and fantasy. You’d have to be a miserable fecker not to enjoy the likes of Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor: Ragnarok, Infinity War, and Deadpool, to name just a few. I could do without the Iron Man 3’s, Captain Marvel’s, and pretty much most DC (cinematic) of this world, but there are some gems.
Film Martin Scorsese - Marvel movies are 'not cinema'
- Thread starter Sweet Square
- Start date
They do risk oversaturation/burn out for sure but on the flip side if the approaches to the stories are unique there can be room for them all to co-exist. marvel also seem to be interested in more representation of (hollywood) minorities both in terms of actors and directors and it will be interesting to see what spin Chloe Zhao will put on the Eternals movie.
I'd also imagine that cinema chains are very excited to have 10 marvel movies in the coming 2 years on the back of COVID enforced closures. Its going to be a necessary evil to keep the chains viable.
That is the very definition of saturation. Bloody hell mate
Also, it's 10 movies in 22 months.
A lot of that is due to the pandemic though. Black widow, Shang chi and the eternals were all meant to be released by now. There's been a knock on effect so that the vast bulk of those releases are this year I believe.
From this point next year, there's 2 left for 2022 and only 2 scheduled for 2023.
The high number of releases isn't really the norm.
From this point next year, there's 2 left for 2022 and only 2 scheduled for 2023.
The high number of releases isn't really the norm.
That's true. Marvel is hardly the only problem, though. Between Marvel, DC and all the remakes, there's not really any high budget original stories anymore.
We're basically left with Nolan, Tarantino and the occasional Oscar bait. Nolan is not my cup of tea and Tarantino's last two movies have been really underwhelming. Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Sometimes it's decent, usually it's uninspired shite.
See, I don't think that's a big amount given the long break that they have just been on, although I enjoy them so I'm obviously biased.
I've regaled this story several times but I went to a midnight screening of the release of the second film on a date. It was actually the first film followed by second film. So 4 hours in total.
To cut a long story short, I thought it was absolutely awful. The humour wasn't funny, it's just geek-filled nonsense. The story was so obvious. No tension. No surprise. Nothing.
My thought process at the time was, well a lot of people like the series so it can't be bad, and yet I couldn't believe how bland the whole thing was.
I learned a lot about marvel fans that evening, roughly about the time I snuck out for some serious self-reflection and to waste twenty minutes in the toilet.
I am a miserable feck so your point probably stands.
I didn't enjoy these too much either. Some good moments, but given that pretty much everything but the human characters is CG, I just couldn't connect to it. I just found myself thinking about the cost of it all a lot. On the other hand, I did really enjoy the Thor Ragnarok (as if that one doesn't have a ton of CG!), the first Deadpool, and the first Avengers film - and probably some others here and there. Which I guess goes with what can't -remember-who said above, that the film's don't all cater to the exact same audience.
Also, I don't really care whether they make too much of them or not. It's not like Marvel would be making other movies instead, or that other films in the genre tend to be so much deeper or more artistic, or that people going to watch this in cinema would go watch a more 'profound' film instead if Marvel were to stop today. So, Marvel make this, and I can decide to watch it or not; and if I don't, there are tons of other films to watch, including good films coming out every day (but unfortunately not all accessible to me).
To me, it's like all the pizzas in supermarkets. It's not quite quality food, or even quality pizza; but it's not like they sell nothing else, and there might be a kind that you like.
Last edited:
Agreed, it's not quite the uncanny valley but something definitely feels off and makes it hard to connect. The colour effects of Guardians of the Galaxy is largely what I remember. It was all very oversaturated.
Its almost a new movie every 2 months!!!
Definite different strokes. I didn't get on as much with either of the GOTG releases, than I did with the majority of the rest. And despite her being OP, I enjoyed Cat-tain Marvel.
I want one every month!
There's plenty of those around.
I couldn't make it all the way through Guardians. I thought it was one of those movies that thinks it's so clever and such a sensation but I found it lackluster and boring and the stakes just felt meaningless and phony. I felt like my time would be better spent reading a book. It is funny how some Marvel fans get so defensive to anyone that doesn't like it. I've even had someone try to lecture me (first, by stating they have "multiple degrees in literary criticism") and Marvel movies are excellent writing and anyone that doesn't think so is just wrong. I do have some friends that love them and it's perfectly fine that we have different tastes (they certainly don't love all the movies I love).
TBF, they have good special effects though.
Last edited:
With the shite that gets released every week. I'd gladly take a superhero movie every month. Least it'll be entertaining.
you should've smashed their head in at that point.That stakes bit I bolded I feel very strongly with every Marvel film I watched. More generally, they increasingly numbed me to themselves. Basically, as they got bigger, I got less interested.
You mean like Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Spiderman Far from home? What could go wrong.
Avengers aside the last few MCU movies have been hot unwatchable garbage.
If these movies are presented seriously, they have a massive problem with grounding and consequences. I felt like they properly jumped the shark with Doctor Strange.
If everybody involved can travel through fecking time and walk through other dimensions like an open door, why are they punching each other in the face? If these people can change the fabric of reality at will, why are they using that power to spin buildings around while they run after each other? If anything that happens can just be done over again with time travel bollocks, why should I care about any of it?
I think it all works a lot better when it doesn't take itself seriously and is played for camp value as in the Thor films.
Yeah, Thor Ragnarok was hilarious; we even watched it again.
I don't actually care too much about realism or whether things have been properly thought through. I mean, one way or another, it's superhero nonsense. I rather meant that I often just can't care about the story, and the bigger the supposed stakes and action, the less I seem to care. In fact, in one of the Avengers films, when Hulk is fighting whoever-it-was (Iron Man?) in a South African city and they're smashing up a part of town, rather than being absorbed by the action, I just found myself thinking that the casual violence and destruction is quite off-putting, and that it must have been a lot of work to create this scene while I don't really care to see it. I guess the intention is that I care about the fight in the context of the narrative, but really: who cares (IMO).
Disney and marvel should ask him to do a movie for them.
So they would then know what a movie should be ?
I love these films, but as soon as you introduce magic and time travel to stuff, you set yourself and your universe up for failure, as nothing has stakes anymore. The smaller and more personal these are, the better.
Disney rep: Ok let's do this shit! So I'm just gonna say what we're all thinking: live.action.remake. BOOM!
Scorsese: I'm a little confused... None of my big titles have been animated. Also, I don't think any of them need a remake.
Disney rep: Hmm, fair point... Unless... *snaps fingers* We do the opposite!
Scorsese: The opposite?
Disney rep: Yeah, we go from live action to animation instead. Ahhh, brilliant! What do you say? I'm thinking we remake Raging Bull, except this time the main character is an actual bull! Voiced by... Kevin Hart maybe? Where are you going, Martin?
________________________
Marvel rep: Ah goo-goo gaa-gaa! Bad guy goes bluuuuh, good guy goes hayaaa!
Marvel rep 2: What my boss is trying to say is: we'd love it if the protagonist from Taxi Driver got a new super ability and joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe!
Or just spice up Hugo a bit and you're pretty much there...
Can't wait to see CGI enhanced Robert De Niro kicking around baddies like an 80 year old again.
When I read the actual bull, I had Kevin Hart in mind
Good video
Ooof I've got it.
The problem with superhero movies is that they mean to distance the viewer from the characters, putting them on a god-like pedestal where you see yourself as inconsequential.
Scorsese on the other hand makes films about people where you're supposed to believe his characters are part of the society that you too are part of, qualms 'n all.
This makes his films the antithesis of capestuff because they're grounded in realism rather than escapism, even in spite of their obvious dramatic qualities.
Thesis submitted for publication.
The problem with superhero movies is that they mean to distance the viewer from the characters, putting them on a god-like pedestal where you see yourself as inconsequential.
Scorsese on the other hand makes films about people where you're supposed to believe his characters are part of the society that you too are part of, qualms 'n all.
This makes his films the antithesis of capestuff because they're grounded in realism rather than escapism, even in spite of their obvious dramatic qualities.
Thesis submitted for publication.
Meh. You can make superhero films with characters who have relatable issues or qualities.
His films are the antithesis of Marvel films cos they're not pure marketing products with no sense of danger or suspense.
True. Looking back, I suppose my point was that the protagonist(s) of your average Marvel film are supposed to be objectified in very different way to your average Scorsese film. He's like any somewhat serious filmmaker in that his main approach is to de-objectify the hero (or anti-hero as they often are) in an attempt to remove the viewer from any state of hero worship. Marvel movies are such the opposite that they want to create hero worship so that the whole film you're basically waiting for the final resolve when the world is saved and we can all go home and sleep soundly.
Yay \o/
Scorsese has basically made a career of taking incredibly flawed characteristics of people and showcasing them on screen so when we leave the cinema we're often asking, who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. With a Marvel movie we know the answer to that straightaway and while they can be a little complex at times - hence your point about relatability - it's often summed up by the end so we don't have to do any workings out. That's why you're also right to describe them as marketable with no sense of danger. Because they're products basically.
Either way, I think we both agree
A good man is Friedkin.
Have ye seen 'Sorcerer' a remake of 'The Wages of Fear' fae 1953? Both of them great, great films.
I hope that Chloe Zhao doesn't spend too much time doing silly childish Marvel movies. One of the very few directors around right now whom I feel I must see what she is doing next. Nomadland looks fantastic! My local film theatre (when it opens back up) will be screening it. Everyone should check out 'The Rider' and 'Songs My Brother Taught Me'.
The bridge crossing scene is remarkable. This along with Aguirre Wrath of God are just incredible films for all sorts of reasons ..
Not everyone who watches superhero movies wets the bed, but everyone who wets the bed watches superhero movies.