Film Martin Scorsese - Marvel movies are 'not cinema'

elmo

Can never have too many Eevees
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
10,772
Location
AKA: Slapanut Goat Smuggla
In his first tweet Gunn is questioning how people come up with the idea that Marvel films have to be approve by the military, then in the second tweet he said well yeah we need military approval if we use any of the US military gear(Which tbh should kind of concern people).
You keep leaving out the most important part which is for free. He's basically saying Marvel paid to use those assets unlike other movie studios.
 

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
16,965
Location
The Zone
You keep leaving out the most important part which is for free. He's basically saying Marvel paid to use those assets unlike other movie studios.
Where is he saying that Marvel paid for these assists ? He also mentions that the Military are pretty ''loose'' about approval which implies that the military have some involvement in these films.

The Captain Marvel film literally ran ads for the US Airforce(I'm pretty sure in this case the US army paid Marvel for some access).

When the Brie Larsen blockbuster "Captain Marvel" rolled out earlier this year, the Air Force launched an all-out recruiting effort, hoping to capitalize on the story of female fighter pilot-turned superhero Carol Danvers. The Air Force placed pre-show ads in more than 3,600 theaters nationwide, bought space at geek hubs such as Fandom.com, and hosted its own press events with Larsen, as well as a red-carpet screening in Washington, D.C. From at least one perspective, the Air Force effort to hitch its wagon to Captain Marvel's star was an unreserved success.

An inspirational 30-second commercial titled "Origin Story," timed to coincide with the film's release in March, was the most popular piece of social media promotional content published by any service in 2019, Lt. Col Jacob Chisolm, deputy chief of strategic marketing at the Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS), told the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) during its December meeting.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/01/05/captain-marvel-effect-air-force-academy-sees-most-female-applicants-5-years.html#:~:text=Through paid media,soon to tell.

 

Zen

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
11,929
To be fair, that kind of crowd... genuinely does love the films, the flaws and the issues go straight over their heads, because WOW moments. I'm more puzzled how they got into such a position that some of their reviews somewhat matter in online scoring metrics - thus why RT's score is mega flawed. I've got a friend who's the exact same.... when I first met him, I spent like half the first few months trying my best to convince him Michael Bay is useless, he wasn't having it.... I kind of give up on that kind of thing instead, he won... always loves it though when I moan :lol:
 

Shane88

Actually Nostradamus
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
31,331
Location
Targaryen loyalist

"Yiz are all feckings wanks, man." :lol:
 

lsd

The Oracle
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
7,347
I've noticed you post in the Dr Who thread

We all have one vice I am aware of a certain irony but in my defence I tell myself at least I don't watch other ScFi shows so can allow one.

Besides I caught some Tom Baker ones and got hooked. Had I saw any other Doctor first I would still have a clear conscionence :(
 

Cascarino

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
4,813
Location
Wales
Supports
Swansea
We all have one vice I am aware of a certain irony but in my defence I tell myself at least I don't watch other ScFi shows so can allow one.

Besides I caught some Tom Baker ones and got hooked. Had I saw any other Doctor first I would still have a clear conscionence :(
I haven't watched any in years but my old housemate was a massive fan, especially the classics. He actually hates Marvel too :lol:
 

The Corinthian

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
1,923
Ridley Scott is a bit of a joke to be honest.


'Exodus' racial casting controversy is a familiar one
"Exodus: Gods and Kings" has generated heated debate and controversy because of its alleged "whitewashing" of Egyptian culture.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/msna470956

Yet, director Scott has been unmoved. In widely criticized comments on the issue, the 77-year-old filmmaker defended his casting choices as a matter of commerce. “I can’t mount a film of this budget, where I have to rely on tax rebates in Spain, and say that my lead actor is Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such,” he told Variety.

“I’m just not going to get it financed. So the question doesn’t even come up,” he added.
 

Vidyoyo

Self-confessed coffee shop chat-up expert
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
10,987
Location
In the good times and golden era
Ridley Scott is a bit of a joke to be honest.


'Exodus' racial casting controversy is a familiar one
"Exodus: Gods and Kings" has generated heated debate and controversy because of its alleged "whitewashing" of Egyptian culture.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/msna470956
Bad taste maybe but his point is about audience demand and the likelihood of attracting profit by using known actors due to the particular way the film was financed.

I'm not sure he's wrong given it was in 2014, so likely financed much earlier than that. For better or worse the demand for supporting ethnic actors wasn't as big back then.

Either way Scott is a spent force so I don't want to get into too much of a tiff over this.
 
Last edited:

The Corinthian

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
1,923
Which part of his point is wrong? It seems more about audience demand and the likelihood of attracting profit by using known actors than anything else.

Either way Scott is a spent force so I don't want to get into too much of a tiff over this.
I’d say the casting of Egyptians, Africans, and Arabs with white European actors. It’s just ignorance to say there aren’t any Egyptian/Middle Eastern actors who could have done it. Also you can maybe make a case for the main headliners ( eg Bale) but they got Sigourney Weaver to play the wife of the Pharoah. It’s ludicrous. And this is without getting into the whitewashing of Cleopatra, an African queen, down the years in Cinema.
 

Vidyoyo

Self-confessed coffee shop chat-up expert
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
10,987
Location
In the good times and golden era
I’d say the casting of Egyptians, Africans, and Arabs with white European actors. It’s just ignorance to say there aren’t any Egyptian/Middle Eastern actors who could have done it. Also you can maybe make a case for the main headliners ( eg Bale) but they got Sigourney Weaver to play the wife of the Pharoah. It’s ludicrous. And this is without getting into the whitewashing of Cleopatra, an African queen, down the years in Cinema.
Right there's two angles to this - the social aspect and neglect of non-white individuals; the other about film financing in general.

I think it's likely those conversations with creditors probably went something along the lines of, how can you make this not exactly popular sounding idea for a movie appeal to the widest audience, and it probably ended up with lots of star names who happened to be white. Not saying Scott did anything to change their minds but if you look at the production companies behind the movie you'll find there were 5, including Scott's own production company. It sounds like a bit of a messy system and I can see how it ended up with this sort of whitewashing.

I actually think though your point is very apt for this thread. Marvel, for all their detractors, do seem to one of the few big production companies able and willing to promote non-white actors in big-budget movies. They've harnessed an audience who're more open to seeing non-white actors in leading roles, even if they're still often peripheral figures and not the star ones. A biblical epic like Exodus: Gods and Kings, which seems as close to a tentpole movie of the cinemascope era as you can get, isn't going to lead that particular debate despite its source material.

Either way, I hope this doesn't sound too flippant because I mostly agree with you and, as I mentioned, think Scott is a bit of a dinosaur in the film world.

Edit - And yes it's undeniable Hollywood does indeed have a history of whitewashing.
 
Last edited:

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
16,965
Location
The Zone
Ridley Scott is a bit of a joke to be honest.


'Exodus' racial casting controversy is a familiar one
"Exodus: Gods and Kings" has generated heated debate and controversy because of its alleged "whitewashing" of Egyptian culture.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/msna470956
Other than Scott bluntness, I'm not sure whats wrong here. He was just telling the truth, it's shitty that this was the case but it's a fault of the system and Scott job is to make movies. Exodus: Gods and Kings wouldn't have been funded without big hollywood stars. It's pretty much the same for Scott new film House Of Gucci, all the lead roles are american actors and it includes one of the worlds biggest pop stars as the main star. That movie wouldn't have been made if it was to include only Italian actors.

Tbh I find the whole modern whitewashing/only people from certain backgrounds can play certain roles argument to be a bit useless and very selective. Are you annoyed that there are no Italian actors in the main roles for the House Of Gucci ? If it's racist/bad for Christian Bale to play Moses then do you also have an issue with Denzel Washington playing Macbeth or Daniel Kaluuya playing Fred Hampton in Judas And The Black Messiah ? I mean The Egyptian Lover isn't even from Egypt!

The goal imo is to let creative people have the space and freedom to create works however they want. It's a fault of the system(Capitalism bad etc....)that even great directors like Scott still can't.
 
Last edited:

neverdie

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2018
Messages
810
without getting into the whitewashing of Cleopatra, an African queen, down the years in Cinema.
She was Greek. Part of the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Middle Eastern or Arabic/Semitic people more generally would be of accurate representation, but she wasn't black (if that's what you mean by African).
 

lsd

The Oracle
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
7,347

Was reading the posts up to this wondering what has Scott done to get Marvel's heads so worked up and here we are


This why I call these movies for kids as Marvel fans have to be the biggest babies I have ever seen.

Someone tells them like it is and they just can't think of anything else and hold the grudge forever.

Scorcese will probably pass away and there's will be Marvel fans celebrating saying Marvel won boom.
 

The Corinthian

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
1,923
She was Greek. Part of the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Middle Eastern or Arabic/Semitic people more generally would be of accurate representation, but she wasn't black (if that's what you mean by African).
She wasn't Elizabeth Taylor white. Much of her heritage is actually unknown. Agree that ME/Arab/Semitic would be closer to the truth overall.

Here is the key evidence in this argument: We are not certain of the heritage of Cleopatra's mother or her paternal grandmother. We just don't know for sure who those women were. Historical records are not conclusive of what their ancestry is or what land they come from. That leaves 50% to 75% of Cleopatra's ancestry and genetic heritage unknown—and ripe for speculation.

Is there any evidence that either her mother or paternal grandmother was a Black African? No.

Is there any evidence that either of those women were not Black Africans? No, again.

There are theories and speculation, based on sparse evidence, but no certainty where either of these women came from or what might be, in nineteenth century terms, their racial heritage.
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
57,686
Location
Peng a leng.
I used to imagine Cleo being well fit but in reality she was probably a moose. Nefertiti on the other hand...
 

Terminator

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
1,874
I agree with Martin Scorsese, I stopped watching Marvel movies a while back because there is no real sense of risk or threat at all and the plots are usually boring. But if the majority are still enjoying Marvel movies, they must be doing something right! Good for them.
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
57,686
Location
Peng a leng.
Shang Chi was bloody awful not even the dragons could save it. And Black Widow wasn't much better. What's wrong with good mindless stuff? Why can't they get that right?!
 

The Corinthian

Full Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2020
Messages
1,923
Right there's two angles to this - the social aspect and neglect of non-white individuals; the other about film financing in general.

I think it's likely those conversations with creditors probably went something along the lines of, how can you make this not exactly popular sounding idea for a movie appeal to the widest audience, and it probably ended up with lots of star names who happened to be white. Not saying Scott did anything to change their minds but if you look at the production companies behind the movie you'll find there were 5, including Scott's own production company. It sounds like a bit of a messy system and I can see how it ended up with this sort of whitewashing.

I actually think though your point is very apt for this thread. Marvel, for all their detractors, do seem to one of the few big production companies able and willing to promote non-white actors in big-budget movies. They've harnessed an audience who're more open to seeing non-white actors in leading roles, even if they're still often peripheral figures and not the star ones. A biblical epic like Exodus: Gods and Kings, which seems as close to a tentpole movie of the cinemascope era as you can get, isn't going to lead that particular debate despite its source material.

Either way, I hope this doesn't sound too flippant because I mostly agree with you and, as I mentioned, think Scott is a bit of a dinosaur in the film world.

Edit - And yes it's undeniable Hollywood does indeed have a history of whitewashing.
Other than Scott bluntness, I'm not sure whats wrong here. He was just telling the truth, it's shitty that this was the case but it's a fault of the system and Scott job is to make movies. Exodus: Gods and Kings wouldn't have been funded without big hollywood stars. It's pretty much the same for Scott new film House Of Gucci, all the lead roles are american actors and it includes one of the worlds biggest pop stars as the main star. That movie wouldn't have been made if it was to include only Italian actors.

Tbh I find the whole modern whitewashing/only people from certain backgrounds can play certain roles argument to be a bit useless and very selective. Are you annoyed that there are no Italian actors in the main roles for the House Of Gucci ? If it's racist/bad for Christian Bale to play Moses then do you also have an issue with Denzel Washington playing Macbeth or Daniel Kaluuya playing Fred Hampton in Judas And The Black Messiah ? I mean The Egyptian Lover isn't even from Egypt!

The goal imo is to let creative people have the space and freedom to create works however they want. It's a fault of the system(Capitalism bad etc....)that even great directors like Scott still can't.
You both make fair points. However, on this movie in particular, I'm just going to reiterate where Ridley Scott went with some of his choices. I can maybe make an exception for Bale as he's the headliner, but look at some of these other choices.

Joel Egderton as Ramses
Sigourney Weaver as Tuya (mother of Ramses)
Ben Mendelson as an Egyptian minister
John Tuturro as Pharoah

I mean, are you seriously saying he's unable to get actual ME/Egyptian or otherwise actor for those roles? The actual Egyptian/black actors in this movies are not even your secondary characters, but the background extras type. It's a bit of a slap in the face considering the spotlight being on the whitewashing of Hollywood long before this.

There's a few other things about Ridley Scott's comments that irk me as well. He gave Weaver, an unheard of name at the time, the lead in Alien (nothing wrong with that of course, and no issues re funding and creditors [but I do think would he have done that if Weaver wasn't a white woman?]). In the years gone by, Ridley Scott is as big as you can get when it comes to reputation in Hollywood - surely now is the time for him to set good examples. His name attached to any movie is going to gain traction, more so than a new director starting out. Why wouldn't he use his reach and power now to actually give PoC good roles in big Hollywood productions?

Also - @Sweet Square you mention Denzel as Macbeth, Kaluuya as Hampton and I'll even mention Dev Patel playing an Arthurian legend as well. I don't have a problem with any of these, because unlike white actors, PoC have always had it harder in Hollywood for these types of roles. And secondly, the casts of Macbeth isn't full of just black actors. The Green Knight isn't just asian actors. Exodus is only full of white American/European actors.
 
Last edited:

HTG

Full Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
3,312
Supports
Bayern
What kind of person gets in line for a trailer? What’s wrong with these people?
 

OleBoiii

New Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2019
Messages
6,023
What kind of person gets in line for a trailer? What’s wrong with these people?
That's actually crazy. Wont the trailer be posted online around the same time?

"Reaction culture" has gone too far :p
 

Vidyoyo

Self-confessed coffee shop chat-up expert
Joined
Jun 12, 2014
Messages
10,987
Location
In the good times and golden era
@The Corinthian

There's a few other things about Ridley Scott's comments that irk me as well. He gave Weaver, an unheard of name at the time, the lead in Alien (nothing wrong with that of course, and no issues re funding and creditors [but I do think would he have done that if Weaver wasn't a white woman?]). In the years gone by, Ridley Scott is as big as you can get when it comes to reputation in Hollywood - surely now is the time for him to set good examples. His name attached to any movie is going to gain traction, more so than a new director starting out. Why wouldn't he use his reach and power now to actually give PoC good roles in big Hollywood productions?

True and honestly, I think you could ask a lot of questions about Scott's career and film output over the past 30 years. He seems to really like making tentpole films and also seems particularly taken by ones with historical themes. I think he spends way more than he needs to making films that often don't end up being very good, which is evidenced by how badly his latest film flopped - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Duel_(2021_film)

I'd still say financing probably plays a part but he's clearly not good at working with actors who aren't known names of some calibre. I've just had a look at his filmography and it's only Denzel Washington and Selma Hayek who seem to be non-white actors he's worked with in the past 20 years.