Film Martin Scorsese - Marvel movies are 'not cinema'

[Vidyoyo]

Well, you’ve touched upon something there that I didn’t in my post, and I for one am grateful because I think that is a very elegant explanation of the anti-fantasy type movie argument that we see constantly revolving the debate circuit. I think it has become a very widely and over-used trope to say “you have to just suspend your disbelief, and let some things slide to enjoy these movies” because I think it does expose a laziness in their writing and production. I don’t think making a fantasy movie means that one has to abandon the laws of believability in terms of character actions and interactions with their environment. Yes one js creating a world in which the improbable is probable, but every created world has to have some grounding back in a framework of some rule construct.

It’s for example, why the Fast and Furious franchise was one completely abandoned by me. One expects characters to defy the usual laws of risk taking and fear by accomplishing ever increasing feats of peril, but they now seem to be immune to the laws of physics too and impervious to serious injury. This undermines the whole series because it was never an established rule framework that they had super powers; which is a borderline assumption you’d now have to make to accept their survival across myriad events in the recent instalments. It took the franchise from improbably to impossible and frankly makes it all ridiculous.

superhero movies have much greater latitude because you have characters imbued with clearly exposed supernatural powers but without clearly defined limits. That can be shaped to fit the story telling. Again, a somewhat lazy writing mechanism, but for me doesn’t necessarily ruin the immersion qualities of the movie in question. The improbability/impossibility is baked into the genre.

Good points. I suppose it's a result too of our own tension decreasing when we're three or four films in, realising the characters are probably going to live no matter what.

I'm dubbing it the Top Gear problem - when you start with some interesting situations but have to keep raising the stakes until it's just three middle-aged men pretending to be in desperate circumstances.

 

[Sweet Square]

I agree. I really enjoyed the Avengers series - I started to watch it during my pandemic training sessions as something to look at while on a threadmill. I considered dropping it after the first movie, but decided to continue and in the end really enjoyed the series. I think the 3rd and 4th movie I actually watched with full attention focused on the screen, got really pulled into the story line which is not that bad.
If people think Avengers story line is not cinema, then there would be plenty other productions which can be labeled similar. Same goes for the fantasy movies in general.

I wonder if Scorsese meant "comics movies in not cinema " (in general) or is it specific to Marvel? I guess it's more of a shorthand because of how many movies they produce (market share).

Tbh I'm not sure the Avengers movies are great to watch while on a treadmill is an argument against Scorsese point. Also you've just given David Lynch a heart attack.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Tbh I'm not sure the Avengers movies are great to watch while on a treadmill is an argument against Scorsese point. Also you've just given David Lynch a heart attack.

“On their FUCKING TELEPHONES…”

 

[GBBQ]

My biggest annoyance with these currently, and anything Disney is churning out at the minute, is that each film or series is seemingly just a big advert for the next one.

There are definitely movies in the MCU that are inconsequential filler that might only be "memorable" for a post credit scene or a mention of a character yet to appear but outside those misses Marvel have done a good job of having an overarching story thats run through 20+ movies and multiple tv shows and you need to have those hooks to keep people interested and to keep the story ticking over.

Ultimately though, MCU is to Film as Comics are to serious literature. You'll have some which will be accepted on merit (The Dark Knight as a film versus Watchmen as a graphic novel for example) but overall the media is designed to be a thrill ride like Scorsese says.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There are definitely movies in the MCU that are inconsequential filler that might only be "memorable" for a post credit scene or a mention of a character yet to appear but outside those misses Marvel have done a good job of having an overarching story thats run through 20+ movies and multiple tv shows and you need to have those hooks to keep people interested and to keep the story ticking over.

Ultimately though, MCU is to Film as Comics are to serious literature. You'll have some which will be accepted on merit (The Dark Knight rises as a film versus Watchmen as a graphic novel for example) but overall the media is designed to be a thrill ride like Scorsese says.

That’s a good analogy actually. Because even the finest graphic novel ever written doesn’t compare to classic works of literature. Which is not to say that it’s not a high quality/interesting piece of art. It just doesn’t really belong in the same category. Which is basically in agreement with the thread title.

 

[Borys]

Tbh I'm not sure the Avengers movies are great to watch while on a treadmill is an argument against Scorsese point. Also you've just given David Lynch a heart attack.

Well I've also said I watched the last two movies with full attention, it just started on a treadmill.

I didn't get the point about Lynch?

 

[Shane88]

Finally, some real cinema. I'm sure Martin will agree...

 

[OleBoiii]

Finally, some real cinema. I'm sure Martin will agree...

Maybe I'm paraphrasing, but did he not call for real people, emotions and stakes?

 

[Sweet Square]

All the jackass movies should be in the criterion collection.

Modern day 3 stooges.

 

[Sweet Square]

Its ridiculous. The world of great content and genuine critique & praise still exists. People still want to make GREAT things.

But we’ve entered the age of mediocrity. It’s endemic. Reaction videos. Screen recordings of screen recordings getting millions of views. Out of context clips being consumed more than the artful whole. Dilutions of original thought as more and more people do the same thing over and over. The same song being attached to every single video to the point it’s original bite is gone. Songs now being made as short as possible because Spotify values play count over quality.

Netflix is now filling up with garbage B-Movies too. You can watch an all-time classic and it will suggest a tumescent something to watch next. The ‘More like this’ section is awful compared to even two years ago.

There’s a push to accept sh1te. It doesn’t feel like anyone is trying to win through best product. It’s retain eyeballs through social conditioning.

I reset my entire Netflix once a month now just to stop it funneling me the same shite. Just because I go on a Zombie movie tear. Or a horror genre fortnight. Or Monster movie marathons… I 100% do not want that all the time. The algorithm is awful.

Apologies. Rant/

Didn't want to derail the movie review thread but this post reminds of both scorsese harper's essay

Flash forward to the present day, as the art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator, “content.”

As recently as fifteen years ago, the term “content” was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against “form.” Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. “Content” became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores. On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?

Curating isn’t undemocratic or “elitist,” a term that is now used so often that it’s become meaningless. It’s an act of generosity—you’re sharing what you love and what has inspired you. (The best streaming platforms, such as the Criterion Channel and MUBI and traditional outlets such as TCM, are based on curating—they’re actually curated.) Algorithms, by definition, are based on calculations that treat the viewer as a consumer and nothing else.

https://harpers.org/archive/2021/03/il-maestro-federico-fellini-martin-scorsese/

and this video

 

[Shane88]

That resulted in 2000+ comments of frothing nerd rage and "ACKshually...." on Reddit.

 

[caid]

I think i find the debate around big dumb action movies more dumb than the dumb action movies. No they're not Casablanca - they're star wars, they're bond movies, they're 90% of the westerns released before them. I don't get the hysteria around them being popular.

 

[Welsh Wonder]

Aquaman has chimed in:

It’s like how people say that music is poppy and this music cool. But you know how hard it is just to get your music out there for people to hear? It’s all subjective. I try not to pick on anything. So, yeah, superhero movies are bubble gum, but they’re like Greek mythology: They have good and evil and heartbreaking moments. And, gosh, you’re taking away other art forms if you stop making them. You’re taking away visual effects, you’re taking away what you can do with makeup. I’m not someone who gets hired to play in a lot of cinema, but by being able to do a superhero movie, I can make a movie about something I really care about. I have a vision for the whole totality of “Aquaman.” There are environmental issues that I get to put into it. So while you’re going, “Oh yeah, it’s just this popcorn movie,” I’m like, “Well, I get to open people’s eyes to things that are important to me.”

 

[choccy77]

No one could have played Iron Man better than RDJ and considering it is what set up and started the MCU as a result, anyone claiming otherwise is an idiot.

 

[HTG]

No one could have played Iron Man better than RDJ and considering it is what set up and started the MCU as a result, anyone claiming otherwise is an idiot.

Meryl Streep would easily outshine him.

 

[OleBoiii]

No one could have played Iron Man better than RDJ and considering it is what set up and started the MCU as a result, anyone claiming otherwise is an idiot.

Oh so we're just gonna pretend that Jim Carrey doesn't exist are we?

 

[OleBoiii]

Aquaman has chimed in:

What a messy piece of text. I still don't get his overall point. Was it a tweet or something?

 

[stevoc]

I think i find the debate around big dumb action movies more dumb than the dumb action movies. No they're not Casablanca - they're star wars, they're bond movies, they're 90% of the westerns released before them. I don't get the hysteria around them being popular.

Yeah grown men (and women) getting worked up about movies produced primarily for children.

 

[choccy77]

Oh so we're just gonna pretend that Jim Carrey doesn't exist are we?

I think that is a Sane idea.

 

[lsd]

That resulted in 2000+ comments of frothing nerd rage and "ACKshually...." on Reddit.

He is right . There is no acting ability at all required in these films. Just a bunch of steroid chewing people who could easily play each other's roles and no one would notice anything different.

 

[Sweet Square]

It's a bit mad that a lot of people still haven't engaged with Scorsese point. He isn't saying super hero movies are simply bad cinema or that he has yet to see a marvel film which meets his standards, it's that he views them as a different form of media. In the same way the doritos advert playing before you watch spiderman part 10,000 is different.

Robert Downey Jr is a good actor and he could of put in a oscar winning performance as iron man but this isn't what gets people to the cinema. People are going see to the flying costume robot for 90 minutes, thats it. It's like debating how important the artwork is on the nemesis roller coaster at Alton Towers. The first suicide squad is truly terrible and great example of comic books not being cinema(Although thats not to say all comic book films) and yet it still made over $700 million. It really doesn't matter who is directing or acting in these giant spectacles.

There could of been a interesting debate after Scorsese comments about what actually is cinema but instead because we live in a hell world we end up with people calling one of americas greatest directors a boring old man and Aquaman saying it's all opinions dude and do you know global warming is hurting all the fish!

 

[OleBoiii]

@Sweet Square

I think it can be summarized like this:

Marvel = McDonald's.
Scorsese films = an Italian restaurant with surprisingly reasonable prices that is nonetheless run by a master chef.

Both are technically restaurants And whether McDonald's food tastes bad or not is highly subjective.

 

[Moby]

Scorsese films = an Italian restaurant

Of course it had to be Italian.

 

[OleBoiii]

Of course it had to be Italian.

I wanted to go for a restaurant that serves more "subtle" dishes, like sushi for instance. But then I noticed how wrong it sounds to equate Scorsese with sushi

Also, Scorsese's films aren't really that subtle. I feel that they are made for everyone. There's nothing elitist about his films.

 

[caid]

It's a bit mad that a lot of people still haven't engaged with Scorsese point. He isn't saying super hero movies are simply bad cinema or that he has yet to see a marvel film which meets his standards, it's that he views them as a different form of media. In the same way the doritos advert playing before you watch spiderman part 10,000 is different.

Robert Downey Jr is a good actor and he could of put in a oscar winning performance as iron man but this isn't what gets people to the cinema. People are going see to the flying costume robot for 90 minutes, thats it. It's like debating how important the artwork is on the nemesis roller coaster at Alton Towers. The first suicide squad is truly terrible and great example of comic books not being cinema(Although thats not to say all comic book films) and yet it still made over $700 million. It really doesn't matter who is directing or acting in these giant spectacles.

There could of been a interesting debate after Scorsese comments about what actually is cinema but instead because we live in a hell world we end up with people calling one of americas greatest directors a boring old man and Aquaman saying it's all opinions dude and do you know global warming is hurting all the fish!

What is cinema then?
I'm kind of enjoying the silly explosions in space cgi fest of recent years. I'm there for the spectacle primarily in most cases. I found the visuals in Intersteller or the new Alien movies or Bladerunner all kind of cinematic and new and interesting. I wasn't especially pushed about anything else in the movie in some cases but i'm glad they were made and financed. Dont get me wrong, i liked the Sunset Limited a lot and found that a great piece of cinema too.
I think it was a throwaway comment on his part and hes become an unwitting figurehead to artisitc snobbery with a side of 'back in my day' basically. I dont see this crisis thats afflicting cinema that Marvel are apparently responsible for. Hollywood has been churning out basic shit for decades, the time to decry summer blockbusters kind of feels done and dusted. Theres still great movies for most tastes being made and produced. Just feels odd to me really. Kind of feels like some genres like horror have never had it so good but they're invalid or irrelevant because there's too many dumb action movies being made.

 

[OleBoiii]

Theres still great movies for most tastes being made and produced.

True, but you can't deny that there has been a drop in original high budget films. There are some directors that still produce high budget originals, like Tarantino, Nolan and Scorsese, but they are few and far between.

I don't think Scorsese was talking about blockbusters, but rather blockbuster brands. People go to watch "the latest Marvel" or the millionth superhero film(which also technically is a brand). The way the general public watch movies has obviously changed. Think about movies like The Matrix or Gladiator. I don't like either of these movies anymore but I loved them as a child/teen. These are original blockbusters that everyone went mad for and talked about for years.

There is something very different about going to watch a movie you know nothing about in advance other than the hype from friends. Not because of the brand, but because the movie itself is good. Sure, you could argue that the actor or the director technically was the "brand" before, but that is still very different. A brand is nothing but a soulless corporation with a bunch of nameless faces creating a hivemind designed to come up with the best way to make money. Directors must also make money, but at least they can enforce their vision onto the movie. You can often tell that "oh, this must be a Tarantino movie" or "this is typical of Scorsese". Marvel movies are characterized by the same superheros being used again and again.

I'm not saying that Marvel movies can't be good. But they clearly represent a different form of cinema. And they(and other companies, to be fair) are dominating the movie industry. Movies like The Matrix and Gladiator are simply not being produced anymore, because they are generally too risky to make. And I think that is a shame.

 

[OleBoiii]

Robert Downey Jr is a good actor and he could of put in a oscar winning performance as iron man but this isn't what gets people to the cinema. People are going see to the flying costume robot for 90 minutes, thats it.

And it's not just the actors.

If my count is correct, there have been 17 different directors for the 24 MCU films. And I believe more than 30 different writers have been involved as well. Marvel is a machine that churns out movies. It's all about the comic book characters they already have the exclusive rights to.

 

[stevoc]

And it's not just the actors.

If my count is correct, there have been 17 different directors for the 24 MCU films. And I believe more than 30 different writers have been involved as well. Marvel is a machine that churns out movies. It's all about the comic book characters they have the exclusive rights to.

Well they couldn't make movies based on characters they don't have the rights to.

 

[OleBoiii]

Well they couldn't make movies based on characters they don't have the rights to.

Oops, forgot to add "already"

 

[caid]

True, but you can't deny that there has been a drop in original high budget films. There are some directors that still produce high budget originals, like Tarantino, Nolan and Scorsese, but they are few and far between.

I don't think Scorsese was talking about blockbusters, but rather blockbuster brands. People go to watch "the latest Marvel" or the millionth superhero film(which also technically is a brand). The way the general public watch movies has obviously changed. Think about movies like The Matrix or Gladiator. I don't like either of these movies anymore but I loved them as a child/teen. These are original blockbusters that everyone went mad for and talked about for years.

There is something very different about going to watch a movie you know nothing about in advance other than the hype from friends. Not because of the brand, but because the movie itself is good. Sure, you could argue that the actor or the director technically was the "brand" before, but that is still very different. A brand is nothing but a soulless corporation with a bunch of nameless faces creating a hivemind designed to come up with the best way to make money. Directors must also make money, but at least they can enforce their vision onto the movie. You can often tell that "oh, this must be a Tarantino movie" or "this is typical of Scorsese". Marvel movies are characterized by the same superheros being used again and again.

I'm not saying that Marvel movies can't be good. But they clearly represent a different form of cinema. And they(and other companies, to be fair) are dominating the movie industry. Movies like The Matrix and Gladiator are simply not being produced anymore, because they are generally too risky to make. And I think that is a shame.

I feel like Dune is a good counter to your argument
My impression is that the cgi involved with something like Interstellar is where a lot of the budget seems to go, if your not going through a black hole in your film I'm not sure it requires a big budget. So I'm not sure its a great barometer of the health of the movie industry or artform.
I feel like Marvel has been the exception to the burning wasteland of dead franchises left behind that the rest of the industry have been making, it hasn't been very succesful ultimately in my view. Again it just feels like a battle lost long ago before cinematic universes were an idea. It was trilogy's and then sequel and prequel trilogies before that. I kind of feel Marvel are on borrowed time at this point too. Fatigue is long set in and continuing to release at the standard they've set with new characters would be hard work. I kind of hope Hollywood moves on but have no expectation of it happening. I dont disagree about the lack of originality and the current fixation on nostalgia and familiar imagery is shallow as feck. Bad movies are pretty terrible atm by any eras standards. I just think theres enough notable exceptions like Dune above or Once Upon a Time in America for it to be in good hands going forward.
Like i think its never been cheaper to throw Pesci, De Niro and Pacino in a room together for 2 hours and have something low key and thoughtful (ignoring actors contracts i guess). In terms of the quality and price of camera's accessability feels like its in a good place. And if an indie director like Taiki Waititi goes and makes a few goofy thor movies then he can spend the rest of his career doing whatever weird, obscure, crazy stuff he wants afterwards and I'm pretty sure Netflix will take literally anything so hes sorted for publishing for the rest of his life.
Cinema is fine

 

[Oldyella]

True, but you can't deny that there has been a drop in original high budget films. There are some directors that still produce high budget originals, like Tarantino, Nolan and Scorsese, but they are few and far between.

I don't think Scorsese was talking about blockbusters, but rather blockbuster brands. People go to watch "the latest Marvel" or the millionth superhero film(which also technically is a brand). The way the general public watch movies has obviously changed. Think about movies like The Matrix or Gladiator. I don't like either of these movies anymore but I loved them as a child/teen. These are original blockbusters that everyone went mad for and talked about for years.

There is something very different about going to watch a movie you know nothing about in advance other than the hype from friends. Not because of the brand, but because the movie itself is good. Sure, you could argue that the actor or the director technically was the "brand" before, but that is still very different. A brand is nothing but a soulless corporation with a bunch of nameless faces creating a hivemind designed to come up with the best way to make money. Directors must also make money, but at least they can enforce their vision onto the movie. You can often tell that "oh, this must be a Tarantino movie" or "this is typical of Scorsese". Marvel movies are characterized by the same superheros being used again and again.

I'm not saying that Marvel movies can't be good. But they clearly represent a different form of cinema. And they(and other companies, to be fair) are dominating the movie industry. Movies like The Matrix and Gladiator are simply not being produced anymore, because they are generally too risky to make. And I think that is a shame.

Thats not a Marvel thing though is it? Feels more a sign of where cinema is at this moment in time. Matrix blew me away because I want into watching it without much of a clue about what it was about, and then Trinity kicked a chair, jumped up in slow motion and we were blown away. No films sneak onto the screen now. Last one off the top of my head is John Wick that just seemed to appear from nowhere. And that doesn't feel like it's marvels fault, just a lack of original ideas.

Feels like you need a big name as a director to get an big movie made now if its not part of a franchise, Last Duel and House of Gucci being examples from Ridley Scott, Tenet last year

 

[George Owen]

What is cinema then?
I'm kind of enjoying the silly explosions in space cgi fest of recent years. I'm there for the spectacle primarily in most cases. I found the visuals in Intersteller or the new Alien movies or Bladerunner all kind of cinematic and new and interesting. I wasn't especially pushed about anything else in the movie in some cases but i'm glad they were made and financed. Dont get me wrong, i liked the Sunset Limited a lot and found that a great piece of cinema too.
I think it was a throwaway comment on his part and hes become an unwitting figurehead to artisitc snobbery with a side of 'back in my day' basically. I dont see this crisis thats afflicting cinema that Marvel are apparently responsible for. Hollywood has been churning out basic shit for decades, the time to decry summer blockbusters kind of feels done and dusted. Theres still great movies for most tastes being made and produced. Just feels odd to me really. Kind of feels like some genres like horror have never had it so good but they're invalid or irrelevant because there's too many dumb action movies being made.

Horror movies are crap nowadays. Absolute crap. Film-makers forgot how to make them.

Shit dialogues, shit CGI, shit plot and shit actors.

Insidious, Annabelle, The Nun, IT (the remake) and all those modern crappy movies, are to horror, what the Marvel movies are to action movies.

 

[caid]

Horror movies are crap nowadays. Absolute crap. Film-makers forgot how to make them.

Shit dialogues, shit CGI, shit plot and shit actors.

Insidious, Annabelle, The Nun, IT (the remake) and all those modern crappy movies, are to horror, what the Marvel movies are to action movies.

Ok and what about the witch, hereditary, midsummer, mother and get out? I mean i get them not being to your taste but from a high art perspective they're obviously quite strong.
Under the shadow, Let the right one in and a girl walks home alone at night are all strong too.

 

[George Owen]

Ok and what about the witch, hereditary, midsummer, mother and get out? I mean i get them not being to your taste but from a high art perspective they're obviously quite strong.

I enjoyed those (haven't seen "Mother!", yet). A breath of fresh air that kinda proves the point in my opinion. They are on the right path for sure. "The Descent" is another one that can be recommended.

 

[OleBoiii]

I feel like Dune is a good counter to your argument

It's not the best example, imo. Dune is based on a hugely popular and famous book and they've already made a film and a TV series based on the source material in the last 37 years. It's more like a reboot/remake.

My impression is that the cgi involved with something like Interstellar is where a lot of the budget seems to go, if your not going through a black hole in your film I'm not sure it requires a big budget.

I'm not sure if this is correct. A-list actors, directors and writers are really expensive. Building sets, blocking off entire streets and staging large battle scenes etc will all be very expensive. Of course it's going to be more expensive if you throw in a lot of CGI on top of this, but it's not the only way to make an expensive film.

Cinema is fine

It depends on who you ask. There's still arthouse, foreign film and Oscar bait, of course. But we have (almost) lost something, and that is the grey area between high art and pure popcorn coming out of Hollywood. The beauty of this grey area is that while most of the films are mediocre and hardly any better than popcorn films, you occasionally get something original that blows everyone away. And there is something quite different about that. I just can't imagine a movie like The Matrix being released today.

________________________________________________________

Thats not a Marvel thing though is it?

Singling out Marvel is wrong, yeah. But they are the biggest culprits. And if I'm not mistaken, their newer films often serve as commercials for upcoming films by adding small teasers or introducing "new" characters? If so, then that must be pretty unique to Marvel?

And that doesn't feel like it's marvels fault, just a lack of original ideas.

It's not a lack of original ideas, but rather a lack of investment. Why take a risk on something original when using the same formula over and over again is a guaranteed success? Like someone else said above: Suicide Squad was a train-wreck to the point where it's become a meme, but it still made a lot of money.

Hollywood has always made shameless and unnecessary sequels(for instance) just to make bank on a beloved title or character. But they probably overestimated the need to make original stuff. The mainstream quite clearly don't need it. And they may not actual want it either.

 

[Sweet Square]

What is cinema then?

According to Scorsese it's this

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.
It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form. And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona” by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.

Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock — I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying. And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed. Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character.

The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now. Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes. They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

I'm kind of enjoying the silly explosions in space cgi fest of recent years. I'm there for the spectacle primarily in most cases. I found the visuals in Intersteller or the new Alien movies or Bladerunner all kind of cinematic and new and interesting. I wasn't especially pushed about anything else in the movie in some cases but i'm glad they were made and financed. Dont get me wrong, i liked the Sunset Limited a lot and found that a great piece of cinema too.

I think with the movies mentioned above there's at least some attempt to put forward the ideas Scorsese mentions in the NYT article. While Scott was clearly high on his own supply while making those Aliens film, they were his films and his attempt to tell a story(The same can be said of Intersteller). Imo Bladerunner 2049 bombing at the box office, shows why it's not similar to the Marvel films. That isn't to say there isn't a dystopian element around these films. The fact Denis Villeneuve needs to dress up his movies in 80's nostalgia just to get funding is pretty depressing.

I dont see this crisis thats afflicting cinema that Marvel are apparently responsible for.

To see watch any film that isn't a franchise in the cinema I have to go to a small arthouse cinema. A giant director like Tarantino had to go public in order for his films to be shown at his favourite cinema. Giants corporations like Disney are simply book up entire cinemas and stopping the ability to see other films. These's franchise films are like the blob, consuming everything in slight. They also end up destroying new directors, as it's a lottery win for the inexperienced director terms of a pay day but they have little say on the creative process. Which means the Disney movies all look the same, sound the same and they all have the same mind numbingly dull liberal world view(Some credit has to go to Zack Synder for being a insane muscle loving libertarian). The end result is production line for movies.

Hollywood has been churning out basic shit for decades, the time to decry summer blockbusters kind of feels done and dusted. Theres still great movies for most tastes being made and produced.

Agree that there are still great movies still getting made today and that Hollywood has always made ton of shite and will continue to after Super hero movies but I do think the last decade has easily been the worse(Hopefully these numbers are correct).

Spoiler: Box Office USA 80's

​

Film​	Distributor​	Year​	Gross​
1	E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial #*	Universal	1982​	$399.805 M​
2	Return of the Jedi #*	20th Century Fox	1983​	$263.837 M​
3	Batman	Warner Bros.	1989​	$252.101 M​
4	Raiders of the Lost Ark #*	Paramount	1981​	$245.034 M​
5	Ghostbusters #*	Columbia	1984​	$238.632 M​
6	Beverly Hills Cop	Paramount	1984​	$234.760 M​
7	The Empire Strikes Back #*	20th Century Fox	1980​	$222.674 M​
8	Back to the Future *	Universal	1985​	$210.610 M​
9	Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade	Paramount	1989​	$197.172 M​
10	Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Spoiler: Box Office USA 90's

​

Film​	Distributor​	Year​	Gross​
1	Titanic *	Paramount	1997​	$600.788 M​
2	Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace *	20th Century Fox	1999​	$431.088 M​
3	Jurassic Park #*	Universal	1993​	$357.068 M​
4	Forrest Gump #*	Paramount	1994​	$329.694 M​
5	The Lion King *	Disney	1994​	$312.856 M​
6	Independence Day	20th Century Fox	1996​	$306.169 M​
7	The Sixth Sense	Disney	1999​	$293.506 M​
8	Home Alone	20th Century Fox	1990​	$285.761 M​
9	Men in Black	Sony / Columbia	1997​	$250.691 M​
10	Toy Story 2 *	Disney	1999​

Spoiler: Box Office USA 2000's

​

Film​	Distributor​	Year​	Gross​
1	Avatar *	20th Century Fox	2009​	$749.766 M​
2	The Dark Knight *	Warner Bros.	2008​	$533.345 M​
3	Shrek 2	DreamWorks	2004​	$441.226 M​
4	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest	Disney	2006​	$423.316 M​
5	Spider-Man	Sony / Columbia	2002​	$407.023 M​
6	Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen	Paramount / DWorks	2009​	$402.112 M​
7	Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith	20th Century Fox	2005​	$380.271 M​
8	The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King *	New Line	2003​	$377.027 M​
9	Spider-Man 2	Sony / Columbia	2004​	$373.586 M​
10	The Passion of the Christ #	Newmarket	2004​	$370.783 M​

Spoiler: Box Office USA 2010's

​

Film​	Distributor​	Year​	Gross​
1	Star Wars: The Force Awakens	Disney	2015​	$936.662 M​
2	Avengers: Endgame	Disney	2019​	$858.373 M​
3	Black Panther	Disney	2018​	$700.060 M​
4	Avengers: Infinity War	Disney	2018​	$678.815 M​
5	Jurassic World	Universal	2015​	$652.271 M​
6	Marvel's The Avengers	Disney	2012​	$623.358 M​
7	Star Wars: The Last Jedi	Disney	2017​	$620.181 M​
8	Incredibles 2	Disney	2018​	$608.582 M​
9	The Lion King

 

[Sweet Square]

@Sweet Square

I think it can be summarized like this:

Marvel = McDonald's.
Scorsese films = an Italian restaurant with surprisingly reasonable prices that is nonetheless run by a master chef.

Both are technically restaurants And whether McDonald's food tastes bad or not is highly subjective.

Now I want a documentary where a guy has to watch nothing but marvel movies for a month and then is told to stop for health reasons.

 

[OleBoiii]

Now I want a documentary where a guy has to watch nothing but marvel movies for a month and then is told to stop for health reasons.

Superhero Me

 

[stevoc]

Singling out Marvel is wrong, yeah. But they are the biggest culprits. And if I'm not mistaken, their newer films often serve as commercials for upcoming films by adding small teasers or introducing "new" characters? If so, then that must be pretty unique to Marvel?

Not these days a lot of movies seem to be inserting post credit scenes or similar as set up for a future movie. Though its a trend that Marvel definitely made popular.

Though I've never really understood the criticism of marvel films being adverts for their next movie. They are a series of interconnected movies in a shared universe so it shouldn't surprise anyone that one of their movies sets up the next one to some extent. Even if at times it is to the detriment of the current movie.

 

[OleBoiii]

Though I've never really understood the criticism of marvel films being adverts for their next movie.

I think it can be boiled down to two reasons:

1. Unless a movie is part of a planned trilogy like LOTR for instance, then the movie itself should be good as a conclusive standalone. When they made The Terminator in the 80's, it was more than good enough as a standalone film. There was not any real need for a Terminator 2, even though that movie arguably is better and does in no way ruin the first film. Marvel is essentially trying to keep people hooked indefinitely. Some of their films feel like long chapters in an ongoing comic book series.

2. It really screams "we have feck you money" when a studio can "predict" the future. Before, when an original blockbuster with sequel potential was released, studios generally wanted to see how well it does before committing to a sequel. Adding a bunch of stuff to an already expensive movie that only makes sense if there's a sequel was probably considered a bad decision. But Marvel are so confident in their success that they can commit to this. It's as if failure isn't even considered to be an option. And in their defence: they are right!