-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Disney CEO Bob Iger Defends Marvel Movies After 'Disrespectful' Attacks From Scorsese and Coppola
- Thread starter Richiek
- Start date
And you aren't wrong. If you take a look at the major MPs that came out in the 1970s you'll see a very interesting pattern emerge.
1972 -Godfather -Became a franchise with 3 (and could have had a fourth) Movies. (books are still considered a franchise as Puzo kept writing about the family for several more books)
1973 -Exorcist -Became a franchise with several sequels and remakes.
1975 -Jaws -Became a franchise with how many now?
1977 -Star Wars -Became a franchise
1978 -Halloween -Became a franchise with the latest installment just coming out last year
1979 -Aliens -Became a franchise that has lasted up until recently
1976 -Rocky -Became a franchise with several sequels and a spin off series
1974 -Texas Chainsaw -Became a franchise of sorts and then remakes
1978 -Superman -Franchise and Branding.
1976 -The Omen -Became a franchise and then a set of remakes
1978 -National Lampoon -Franchise and has been for years
1970 -Mash -Became a well recived TV series that lasted for years
1970 -Beneath the Plant of the Apes -Second or third (can't remember) in a Franchise that is still going today
That's not even counting the number of Disaster pictues and Hammer Horror movies that were coming out year after year in the 1970s that pushed the idea of the long running cycle of "Hey people like it, it puts butts in seats let's do this!" Franchises were born out of the 1970s and into the 1980s because Movies were struggling against TV at the time.
I enjoyed this write up from Vulture on the subject. As someone who has seen most of the MCU films, enjoyed plenty of them and keep up with the news surrounding them, I still agree with Scorsese, Coppola, Loach and other auteurs.
I kinda wanted a make a new thread on it but we probably have too many threads on this subject already lol.
I kinda wanted a make a new thread on it but we probably have too many threads on this subject already lol.
I mean most of the highest rated superheroes movies do not have great fight scene like dark knight and black panther
what
Imagine doing mental gymnastics to defend a billionaire. Imagine living that life.
Coppola, Scorsese and George Lucas are all close friends.
Also, I'm sure a lot of people are interested in what they have to say.
OP
OP
And it was Coppola that gave Lucas his start in Hollywood. Coppola produced Lucas' first two films (THX-1138 and American Graffiti) and had intended for Lucas to direct Apocalypse Now.
Imagine ignoring the substance of statements to easily dismiss them as "mental gymnastics defending a billionaire".
Imagine living that life.
Coppola and Scorsese have plenty millions as well and don't need you caping for their opinions either.
Trivia-Black Panther (comic)debuted and existed months before the group came into fruition.
He literally said any one of their movies.
That implies Apocalypse Now or Taxi Driver. He's saying that Black Panther is as good as any movie in their filmography. Are you confused about something?
When you think about it Silence is another crime flick considering the Jesuits are criminals in Japan
It's really not that hard, and lies more in the cultural impact of the movie rather than its overall quality.
While the movie goes too soft on colonialism in general and it can be argued that aspects of the 'Dark Continent' are still present in unfortunate volume,
the key central theme of the movie is obviously African diaspora with Black Panther and Killmonger acting as foils to each other.
Can you point to another mainstream blockbuster movie that has covered the theme of African Diaspora?
I legitimately think that Coogler pulling in a billion with black super-hero flick that delivered a plot with the central theme of African Diaspora to mainstream audiences is going to do more for cinema in the long run than Scorsese making another Italian gangster movie.
It's too bad that the CG in the last act is horrendous, or it would easily be my favorite movie of 2018.
Read what I wrote, he's saying both the good and bad, and not just saying the best rated Marvel movie is as good or better than other time-tested films already considered classics, but he's saying in his his opinion, which this whole thing started over opinions, that comparing BP to their entire filmography is saying it has as much right to be considered cinema and not treated like an inherently inferior product, regardless of the actual quality.
It's not even controversial and I agree with what he is saying.
Last edited:
We all read what you wrote. And what you wrote reveals that you're very confused about what Iger said if we're being generous.
I was asking the person who quoted me to reread my quote since he mischaracterized the quote and what I was saying about it.
Also you are responding to an incomplete post that got posted because I'm on mobile. Read the above.
I can't even begin to understand how you're getting this out of what Iger said. It's the most roundabout possible reading of the quote.
Do you get tired of constantly hating on the MCU? Lol it's like the Avatar bet thread all over again.
I can't understand how you or anyone without an agenda can read it as Iger saying BP is better than the mentioned films when clearly it's in reference to Scorsese'a original quote.
"You tell me, Ryan Coogler making Black Panther is doing something that is, somehow or other,"
He's responding directly to the criticism that Scorsese make that Marvel films "aren't cinema", that they are "other" as in, something else.
" less than what Marty Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola have ever done on any one of their movies. C'mon. There, I said it."
"Less than" referring to the same sentiment that they are lesser forms of entertainment, like a roller coaster. Nothing but a thrill ride, not evoking real human drama. He's also saying compared to their whole filmography, not just a quality of their very best work, that it deserves to be recognized as cinema and for the quality it does have.
It's not hard to understand.
If I don't kiss the feet of Bob Iger like some of you are doing, that means I'm hating on the MCU?
Oh I get it, Jett is just trolling. lol
Good one. Have a good day.
No, obsessively posting the same posts in every MCU thread means you're hating but, hey, what do I know, I'm just a Disney-shill.
You're being hugely obtuse in defense of Bog Iger, for some reason.
Uh huh?
At leas you admit it.
Huh, I read that as Iger saying that Coogler, Scorsese and Coppola all put 'their creative souls on the line' and they and their crews all work as hard as one another. So, they are not doing anything that is less. Don't think he's really talking about whose movie is better. But sure, had he said that Black Panther is as good as Coppola's or Scorsese's work, that would be controversial I guess.
Either way, it's certainly disrespectful to everyone who worked on those movies to judge them while he's not seen them, so I guess Iger is right about Scorsese. Is calling the movies dispicable disrespectful to the people who worked on them? Sounds about right. So I guess he's right about Coppola too.
It would've been interesting if either Scorsese or Coppola would've taken the time to say something more insightful. Directors with a vision severely rejecting the work of other directors is nothing new, and could potentially even be interesting or illuminating. Alas, there's little here.
Either way, it's certainly disrespectful to everyone who worked on those movies to judge them while he's not seen them, so I guess Iger is right about Scorsese. Is calling the movies dispicable disrespectful to the people who worked on them? Sounds about right. So I guess he's right about Coppola too.
It would've been interesting if either Scorsese or Coppola would've taken the time to say something more insightful. Directors with a vision severely rejecting the work of other directors is nothing new, and could potentially even be interesting or illuminating. Alas, there's little here.
The one being obtuse isn't me, especially when you say "I can't even understand" then refuse to engage with what I actually wrote but instead continue to project this discussion being about defending/attacking Bob Iger, for some reason.
Are we not talking about what a person said and not some weird personal attack/defense framing?
It's funny, whenever someone is trying to go to bat for the MCU, they're being attacked on a personal level. But Scorcese and Coppola? They made some of the best films of all time, so we'll conveniently ignore that they, too, are billionaires and love to defend a convicted pedophile, put him on a pedestal even. Surely people who need a defense force as much as Bob Iger does.
In fact, Jack is one of the greatest films. Of all time. It single handedly saved cinema.
I'm sure people are interested in what Iger has to say too.
That doesn't mean that this dumb spat isn't idiotic. Shove all three of these geriatric old men in a nursing home, let them settle it on the dominoes table. And stop wasting my time reading about said old men sniping at each other over which one of them makes the best genre films that turned into giant franchises.
I'm sure they won't actually end up in nursing homes. They're all extremely rich.
And I simply don't see any substance to any of their points. Scorsese just got handed an absolutely obscene amount of money to do exactly the kind of picture he loves to do, and the Marvel movies will continue to print money for Iger/Disney regardless of what the former (or other auteurs like him) say about them.
These headlines might as well be about bankers complaining about each others' yachts.
Iger using Black Panther when MCU movies were starring bunch of white dudes for 10 years before then is... interesting.
Can you name me any Coppola or Scorcese, that stars someone other than a white dude? I can't think of one. Even women as protagonists rarely happen in their films. And both of them had half a century to create something diverse.
meanwhile
George Miller da God loves superheroes, considers them American mythology like the Greeks and Romans and almost did a Justice League film
George Miller da God loves superheroes, considers them American mythology like the Greeks and Romans and almost did a Justice League film
meanwhile
George Miller da God loves superheroes, considers them American mythology like the Greeks and Romans and almost did a Justice League film
George Miller doing Kamandi would be the greatest thing ever.
but honestly though. would there be a reason why someone like George Miller would embrace superheroes while Scorsese and Coppola would discredit them. He is of their generation
If they would make more experiemental mid-budget movies, we could get somewhere. Instead, everything is played too safe and the studios with all the money get to create the market, and now it is only existing IPs. So goes the consolidation of media empires and wealth.
