Ken Loach Says Marvel Films Are "Made as Commodities Like Hamburgers"

[TDLink]

The level of aggression y'all have about this stuff is unreal. Frankly I don't have much motivation left to continue these essays back and forth about this subject. I suppose at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree considering the way things are being replied to.

Two last things I will respond to, because they continue to completely miss what I was saying:

The problem is you have not done a very good job proving this point, especially in relation to the 2000s.
Do you really feel like movies such as Hancock, I am Legend, 300, and Talledega Nights are somehow different from MCU titles when it comes to narrative structure and the production process? In what ways exactly?

And why do you have such an issue with the fact that the MCU aims to have a studio driven, cohesive vision?
Do you not feel like executive producers such as Kevin Feige are pushing forward their own creative vision, albeit maybe in a way different than how Coppola or Scorsese did in previous decades?

Click to shrink...

I am not talking about the production process once bit. Never was. I understand this is what you are trying to equate it to because it is what makes the "lazy devs" analogy work, but it is not my argument. What the MCU is doing is interesting, and something I even enjoy, truly I do -- what I don't enjoy is it creating a very homogenous blockbuster film industry that simply didn't exist this way before. This is nothing against Kevin Feige, but he is a producer. He is not the writer and director of these films. And yet it is by his grand plan that everything must come to pass. It is interesting, effectively applying the television model to film -- but he himself is not really creative. He is a businessman. A businessman who is just saying we're going to do this one here, then this one here, and it's going to connect via this. It is not comparable to Coppola's and Scorsese's work -- they are actually there managing every element of the picture and turning it into the film it will be. And then they move on to something else that is often completely different.

Absolute horseshit. The total number of superhero movies released per year is tiny. In 2018 there were 6. This year there were 7, 8 if you count Glass for some reason. In 2020 there are also 7 scheduled. Over 130 films are released each year in theaters in the US. Superhero films are 5% of feature film releases yearly. The notion that they've somehow "taken over" or that there aren't other films coming out is laughable.

Click to shrink...

Like I said earlier, it is not just about the movies that are literally superhero films, but also the ones that are essentially superhero films (ie, fast and the furious, Power Rangers, etc.) that follow the same format. I actually DON'T count movies like GLASS or JOKER as part of these. While you could say that have some superhero DNA, they are not the same type of movie. My point isn't about where they originate or if a comic book character is in them. It's if they are studio-driven projects instead of creator-driven. Pure and simple. Currently MISSION IMPOSSIBLE and JOHN WICK are the most notable regular series that seem to defy this.

And yes, even at that low count of 6 - 8 that is seemingly only considering DC and Marvel films, that is quite a lot per year. That is not the number that was happening in the 2000s. If even half of that number were other kinds of films there would be a lot less to fret about.

The 130/year number also completely misses my point as I'm talking about movies created in the Hollywood system that are mid-high budget, of which the total per year is much much lower.

 

[MistaTwo]

Nah, I'm not off base at all. You can use "lazy dev" or "lazy devs" for single or multiple people. The point is you're blaming the person who worked on it for not putting effort into it and being "lazy" as to the reason for something happening or not existing which doesn't factor in everything involved that created that result. But hey, if you want to argue over semantics of a single or multiple people, then fine, lazy visual effects team, lazy set designers, lazy costume designers, etc. It's easy to apply but you're missing the point. The point is where you're laying the blame and how you're doing it. Complaining about it being fundamentally the same even though it looks different is critiquing the end product and not the effort involved. You use GameFreak as an example and complaining about reused assets can be a valid criticism depending on how and why they were used but complaining about the reuse of assets isn't the same as calling developers lazy. It's critiquing the end product and not the effort. Now if you said the reason they reused assets is because the devs are lazy, that's a completely different critique and narrative.

People complain all the time how The Force Awakens was pretty much a retread of past films. Complaining about that isn't shitting on the effort and the people that worked on creating that film; it's complaining about the end product and would be a perfectly reasonable for someone to use the figure of speech calling it the same as before with a new coat of paint.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, we are just going to have to agree to disagree as I said before.
No one unironically using the 'lazy devs' argument is actually critiquing the development process because they literally don't have the knowledge to do so in 99.9% of cases.
That's the entire issue with that rhetoric. Those people are critiquing the end product by treating the devs as some monolith that should do better by their own uneducated opinion.

I did not even directly correlate the two and said it was bordering on that sort of rhetoric, which I will stand by.

I don't have many issues with his more nuanced takes even if I don't agree with them, but that first comment was extremely condescending in my opinion.

 

[BanGy]

People in this thread be writing essays to debate this lol. What a time to be alive

Click to shrink...

The same people have been arguing the same points for like five threads, we truly are blessed.

 

[Darknight]

Yeah, we are just going to have to agree to disagree as I said before.
No one unironically using the 'lazy devs' argument is actually critiquing the development process because they literally don't have the knowledge to do so in 99.9% of cases.

Click to shrink...

Oh you are so naive if you believe this. In all my years of experience in this industry and having been on not just this forum but the prior since the beginning, plenty of people complaining about lazy devs really do think they didn't put the effort in. You're right though, they literally don't have the knowledge what goes on which is why I hate the usage. Plenty of times I've witnessed the speculation and complaints about why things are the way they are and I just have to bite my tongue when I have intimate knowledge that knows why certain things happened but make no mistake, the usage of lazy devs is most certainly critiquing the development process and calling the effort lazy a lot of the time.

That's the entire issue with that rhetoric. Those people are critiquing the end product by treating the devs as some monolith that should do better by their own uneducated opinion.

I did not even directly correlate the two and said it was bordering on that sort of rhetoric, which I will stand by.

Click to shrink...

Nah, they're laying blame on the result based on the effort. It's fine to complain just about anything reasonable in the game. Things being iterative, things not changing and so forth but none of that is the same thing as calling a developer lazy. There's a very distinct separation of where you're directing the critique to and it's pretty simple. Things about the product is the product; things explaining why or the effort put in is about the people.

I don't have many issues with his more nuanced takes even if I don't agree with them, but that first comment was extremely condescending in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

And like I said, that figurative expression is a commonly used expression that most people understand what it means. It's critiquing the end product and not attacking the people who created it. Lazy devs does that; complaining about a game reusing assets or being the same is not. You're muddling the two when there is a clear difference. If you want to take a common figure of speech and treat it as if it's an attack on the people who created the product then there are so many more critiques that you can just attribute to be the same thing that we often do and you can easily start shifting any critique to diminishing the effort of the people involved. That's a terrible path to go down.

 

[MistaTwo]

I am not talking about the production process once bit. Never was. I understand this is what you are trying to equate it to because it is what makes the "lazy devs" analogy work, but it is not my argument. What the MCU is doing is interesting, and something I even enjoy, truly I do -- what I don't enjoy is it creating a very homogenous blockbuster film industry that simply didn't exist this way before. This is nothing against Kevin Feige, but he is a producer. He is not the writer and director of these films. And yet it is by his grand plan that everything must come to pass. It is interesting, effectively applying the television model to film -- but he himself is not really creative. He is a businessman. A businessman who is just saying we're going to do this one here, then this one here, and it's going to connect via this. It is not comparable to Coppola's and Scorsese's work -- they are actually there managing every element of the picture and turning it into the film it will be. And then they move on to something else that is often completely different.

Click to shrink...

You responded to my comment that I felt marvel movies do not overlap in style THAT (emphasis is important, I agree there is some obvious overlap) much thanks to movies like Black Panther, Captain Marvel, and Ragnarok with the comment that they are the same thing, just with a different paint job.
Is that 'paint job' not something that is created through the production process? I just took umbrage with it because it felt like an oversimplification of an important part of the production process in the medium in order to hand wave away any positive aspects that the films hold.

Also, the entire thread is about the production process according to the title and comments from Ken Loach, no?
So, I am not even sure where you are going with this.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And like I said, that figurative expression is a commonly used expression that most people understand what it means. It's critiquing the end product and not attacking the people who created it. Lazy devs does that; complaining about a game reusing assets or being the same is not. You're muddling the two when there is a clear difference. If you want to take a common figure of speech and treat it as if it's an attack on the people who created the product then there are so many more critiques that you can just attribute to be the same thing that we often do and you can easily start shifting any critique to diminishing the effort of the people involved. That's a terrible path to go down.

Click to shrink...

Something being a common figure of speech is NEVER and I mean NEVER a good argument to dismiss someone's issues with said figure of speech.
This should be common sense in 2019.
Lazy devs was also a common figure of speech at the old place and still is on most message boards and social media.

 

[Released]

Not sure I'm completely on board with this particular critique. I don't think a lot of money being involved, or a strong desire by the studio to make money, necessarily leads to a bad product. I also don't much care though. People have opinions, and when asked for them, are they not allowed to express? Why get so upset over what someone thinks of a movie you like?

I will say the best slam on these movies (or MCU at least) came from Almodovar, who called them sexless. Now that is an accurate take.

 

[Darknight]

Something being a common figure of speech is NEVER and I mean NEVER a good argument to dismiss someone's issues with said figure of speech.
This should be common sense in 2019.
Lazy devs was also a common figure of speech at the old place and still is on most message boards and social media.

Click to shrink...

But it's commonly understood what it means though and you're interpretation is not it nor widely interpreted as such. It has never been it. Where as the usage of lazy devs has always been to complain about the effort the developer put into it. It has never been a direct critique of the game or feature; it has been used to explain why the game or feature is bad. That's why they're different and you comparing the two isn't a good comparison. You trying to compare it to other instances of commonly used vocabulary or phrases that have hurt people of race or gender is also in pretty poor taste too and to try and make such a thing a comparison of dismissal. Plus, like I said before, if you start opening critiques that criticize the product to attack the effort or work of the people who worked on it, that's a bad road to go down.

 

[MistaTwo]

But it's commonly understood what it means though and you're interpretation is not it nor widely interpreted as such. It has never been it. Where as the usage of lazy devs has always been to complain about the effort the developer put into it. It has never been a direct critique of the game or feature; it has been used to explain why the game or feature is bad. That's why they're different and you comparing the two isn't a good comparison. You trying to compare it to other instances of commonly used vocabulary or phrases that have hurt people of race or gender is also in pretty poor taste too and to try and make such a thing a comparison of dismissal. Plus, like I said before, if you start opening critiques that criticize the product to attack the effort or work of the people who worked on it, that's a bad road to go down.

Click to shrink...

I dunno, I think it is widely interpreted as a derogatory remark to note that not much work went into whatever they are referencing.
'They just slapped a new coat of paint on it." etc. is a figure of speech directly criticizing the effort that was put into it.
That's like....the entire point of the expression.
As far as I have ever understood it comes from the idea that you can't improve an old rusty car by just slapping a coat of paint on it.

 

[Darknight]

I dunno, I think it is widely interpreted as a derogatory remark to note that not much work went into whatever they are referencing.
'They just slapped a new coat of paint on it." etc. is a figure of speech directly criticizing the effort that was put into it.
That's like....the entire point of the expression.
As far as I have ever understood it comes from the idea that you can't improve an old rusty car by just slapping a coat of paint on it.

Click to shrink...

You're going to have to show me some receipts because every example I've found so far is in reference that it may look new on the surface, but it really hasn't changed much. Nothing about the effort of the work involved. If anything, it's more in line with the expression of putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[roflwaffles]

I'm gonna be honest guys.



I have no idea who the fuck Ken Loach is.

 

[VeePs]

I'm gonna be honest guys.



I have no idea who the fuck Ken Loach is.

Click to shrink...

Yet here we are commenting on his thoughts in a almost 20 page thread.

makes u think

 

[Deleted member 37143]

Why do people get so offended by these quotes? Who cares?

Click to shrink...

Because on video game forums, everybody needs to defend a corporate brand.

 

[Xando]

He's right. Marvel movies are the fast food of cinema.

 

[tulpa]

I really love Ken Loach's movies. I think they've done a lot of good for the world

 

[meowdi gras]

Keep it up, peeps, we're almost to 20 pages on this thing (again)!

.........

For a little levity (if not, possibly, perspective): if Messieurs Scorsese's, Coppola's, Loach's, etc., sentiments are enough to tweak your delicate sensibilities, perhaps look into the way some of history's most-esteemed artists have spoken of their peers and forebears in their respective mediums...

I present, as Exhibit A, Vladimir Nabokov--he of Lolita fame--and his pricelessly "colorful" takes on various other venerated gladiators of the pen:

http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-recommendations

 

[Timbuktu]

I really love Ken Loach's movies. I think they've done a lot of good for the world

Click to shrink...

One would have thought Era would love his socially conscious, political cinema. I mean, I can't really think of a bigger name than Ken Loach in English language cinema who has been as unwaveringly committed to left wing ideology.

 

[apocat]

Keep it up, peeps, we're almost to 20 pages on this thing (again)!

.........

For a little levity (if not, possibly, perspective): if Messieurs Scorsese's, Coppola's, Loach's, etc., sentiments are enough to tweak your delicate sensibilities, perhaps look into the way some of history's most-esteemed artists have spoken of their peers and forebears in their respective mediums...

I present, as Exhibit A, Vladimir Nabokov--he of Lolita fame--and his pricelessly "colorful" takes on various other venerated gladiators of the pen:

http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-recommendations

Click to shrink...

Haha, this is amazing! How swiftly he just shreds through some of the great names of literature history as if they were laughable poseurs. It's hilarious!

 

[Grayson]

Because on video game forums, everybody needs to defend a corporate brand.

Click to shrink...

Your post is one of the most dishonest I've seen in some time.

 

[Deleted member 23381]

Lmao at how defensive people over this.

 

[RedSparrows]

Haha, this is amazing! How swiftly he just shreds through some of the great names of literature history as if they were laughable poseurs. It's hilarious!

Click to shrink...

Nabokov got no time for anyone's shit. Normally I'd be wary, but given he writes English better than most native authors, kinda gotta step back and just respect it; ditto his simulacrum of humility: 'let people compare me to Joyce if they want'. Hahahaha, what a dude.

 

[Addi]

I wonder what the most tame criticism of superhero movies can be to create a 20 page thread on here. This isn't pretty far off I think.

 

[Disco]

They could use less harsh words to describe these movies so as to not be so insulting to those who worked on it (or draw ire from an obnoxious cult-like portion of the fanbase)

but essentially they are speaking facts. water is wet. and these movies ARE the film equivalent of a theme park ride. and they're also big marketing machines to drive the brand and merchandise. i don't know how that can be disputed. just take them as they are and enjoy.

 

[strudelkuchen]

When is this gatekeeping bullshit going to stop. Let people enjoy things.

Click to shrink...

Is it gate keeping when they (Marvel/Disney) own the gate?

 

[Zombine]

Your post is one of the most dishonest I've seen in some time.

Click to shrink...

Unfortunately, while it may be unfair to generalize, there is a prevalent attitude present among "enthusiast" (I.e. nerd) communities to defend particular brands. There is an incredibly valid conversation to be had about the quality of these works and the present effect they have had on the modern blockbuster.

Notice I said modern blockbuster and not cinema in general. I would argue that the film industry (while going through growing pains in the advent of digital) are taking lots of risks producing films that appeal to the classic movie goer, along with those that are fans of the "genre film." What Marvel movies have done (for better or worse) is replace the spots that would have been filled by original blockbusters (Die Hard, Independence Day, Armageddon, etc) and have shattered the notion that the only time that these movies should be made available is early summer during the hottest months. I believe that inaccurately some industry vets believe the new flexible release structure is going to stop or hinder the performance of whatever art film they release in the same time frame—a concern which ultimately is silly because it exists as counter programming, and ticket pricing is being subsidized by wonderful subscription services such as Regal Unlimited and AMC's program.

Marvel films are not "high art." They are absolutely fast food but they are also endlessly entertaining and have maintained that "fast food" quality that you come to expect when you get your order.They are familiar, sometimes quite enjoyable, and you're probably going to come back to get more in the future. It takes the long form storytelling of television and blows up the budget by millions. That appeals to a lot of people—it sure as hell appeals to me.

But the argument that people with concerns about the integrity of some people here is not particularly wrong. There's some bad (and incredibly fucking creepy) eggs that feel as if it is their job to defend Disney around every corner, or on the gaming side (same issue on the old site) to defend Sony with every last dying breath. I haven't done shit like this since I was like 12. People need to learn that we are just consumers and we have the power to influence with our money and not our blind fandom.

 

[apocat]

Nabokov got no time for anyone's shit. Normally I'd be wary, but given he writes English better than most native authors, kinda gotta step back and just respect it; ditto his simulacrum of humility: 'let people compare me to Joyce if they want'. Hahahaha, what a dude.

Click to shrink...

He absolutely is one of the most accomplished authors who ever lived. He's still vicious as hell right here. It's like watching a rabid fox tear a whole nest of baby chickens to shreds.

He also only seemed to like Ulysses, and just casually disses all of Joyces other works.

I wonder what the most tame criticism of superhero movies can be to create a 20 page thread on here. This isn't pretty far off I think.

Click to shrink...

Seriously. It's not even that agressive criticism, and it's certainly not unfair in any way. People should check out that link to Nabokovs assessments of his literary peers posted above for some contrast.

 

[tulpa]

Here's the thing:

Ken Loach makes movies designed to expose and bring awareness to the pain caused by people living under austerity cuts and benefits sanctions (I, Daniel Blake) and to expose the horrors of the colonial legacy of his own country (The Wind That Shakes The Barley).

Marvel makes films designed to glorify and idealize the US military industrial complex responsible for the brutal slaughter of a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, often as Pentagon-funded co-productions where the US DoD has final script approval and can object to the inclusion of even minor elements that might cast any aspersions on the US army, as not to risk or compromise their close and active working relationship with the US government.

If you really come down on the side of aggressively defending the latter and attacking the former, maybe you should wonder how you got to that place.

 

[birdinsky]

How did we go from "Sure, and I like hamburgers" on the first page to 20 pages of essays on what film is. I mean, because "Sure, and I like hamburgers" seems like the correct response.

 

[RedSparrows]

He absolutely is one of the most accomplished authors who ever lived. He's still vicious as hell right here. It's like watching a rabid fox tear a whole nest of baby chickens to shreds.

He also only seemed to like Ulysses, and just casually disses all of Joyces other works.




Seriously. It's not even that agressive criticism, and it's certainly not unfair in any way. People should check out that link to Nabokovs assessments of his literary peers posted above for some contrast.

Click to shrink...

Oh yes, it's brutal. I don't necessarily agree (dare I venture to say that to the ghost of Nabokov? Haha) but I kinda admire the certainty and the lack of respect for canonisation.

I'd also agree with him on say, Turgenev, and they are one of my favourite writers. It's ok to love things that might not be the most superlative of all time. Personally, I don't feel the need to slag off everything else, but then I ain't a precious/precocious Old Russian émigré with an ego. Is an interesting cultural nexus.

/Ramble

 

[WrenchNinja]

Here's the thing:

Ken Loach makes movies designed to expose and bring awareness to the pain caused by people living under austerity cuts and benefits sanctions (I, Daniel Blake) and to expose the horrors of the colonial legacy of his own country (The Wind That Shakes The Barley).

Marvel makes films designed to glorify and idealize the US military industrial complex responsible for the brutal slaughter of a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, often as Pentagon-funded co-productions where the US DoD has final script approval and can object to the inclusion of even minor elements that might cast any aspersions on the US army, as not to risk or compromise their close and active working relationship with the US government.

If you really come down on the side of aggressively defending the latter and attacking the former, maybe you should wonder how you got to that place.

Click to shrink...

 

[MrKlaw]

I'm waiting for David Lynch's punt

Click to shrink...

Marvel movies watched on smartphones are not cinema

 

[Aureon]

Here's the thing:

Ken Loach makes movies designed to expose and bring awareness to the pain caused by people living under austerity cuts and benefits sanctions (I, Daniel Blake) and to expose the horrors of the colonial legacy of his own country (The Wind That Shakes The Barley).

Marvel makes films designed to glorify and idealize the US military industrial complex responsible for the brutal slaughter of a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, often as Pentagon-funded co-productions where the US DoD has final script approval and can object to the inclusion of even minor elements that might cast any aspersions on the US army, as not to risk or compromise their close and active working relationship with the US government.

If you really come down on the side of aggressively defending the latter and attacking the former, maybe you should wonder how you got to that place.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[Messofanego]

How do you know about those restrictions, when Gunn, Coogler and Waititi pretty much had free reign on those films? I feel like these "directors can't do their own thing!!" takes are largely coloured by what happenedduring the original Ant Man, and it's safe to say those were Perlmutter shenanigans.

Click to shrink...

Even films like Thor Ragnarok by Taika Waititi end up losing a bit of the director's voice especially when he didn't get to write the screenplay for it when for all of his other non-MCU films, he's written them and his comedic signature is all over the place. While Thor Ragnarok was just not funny in the way his films usually are, and the jokes are more in line with any other MCU film. Or how Guardians Of The Galaxy doesn't feel like a James Gunn film in tone or comedy which happens to be quite dark e.g. Super, Slither, Tromeo and Juliet.

Here's the thing:

Ken Loach makes movies designed to expose and bring awareness to the pain caused by people living under austerity cuts and benefits sanctions (I, Daniel Blake) and to expose the horrors of the colonial legacy of his own country (The Wind That Shakes The Barley).

Marvel makes films designed to glorify and idealize the US military industrial complex responsible for the brutal slaughter of a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, often as Pentagon-funded co-productions where the US DoD has final script approval and can object to the inclusion of even minor elements that might cast any aspersions on the US army, as not to risk or compromise their close and active working relationship with the US government.

If you really come down on the side of aggressively defending the latter and attacking the former, maybe you should wonder how you got to that place.

Click to shrink...

Great point.

 

[Jest]

Even films like Thor Ragnarok by Taika Waititi end up losing a bit of the director's voice especially when he didn't get to write the screenplay for it when for all of his other non-MCU films, he's written them and his comedic signature is all over the place. While Thor Ragnarok was just not funny in the way his films usually are, and the jokes are more in line with any other MCU film. Or how Guardians Of The Galaxy doesn't feel like a James Gunn film in tone or comedy which happens to be quite dark e.g. Super, Slither, Tromeo and Juliet.

Click to shrink...

This is a weird thing to say when Korg is absolutely Taika in tone and comedic style and James Gunn has specifically spoken about how his tone and style has changed quite a bit over the years as he's grown as a person. Gunn no longer has the dark and edgy style to his own works.

 

[Alice]

Even films like Thor Ragnarok by Taika Waititi end up losing a bit of the director's voice especially when he didn't get to write the screenplay for it when for all of his other non-MCU films, he's written them and his comedic signature is all over the place. While Thor Ragnarok was just not funny in the way his films usually are, and the jokes are more in line with any other MCU film. Or how Guardians Of The Galaxy doesn't feel like a James Gunn film in tone or comedy which happens to be quite dark e.g. Super, Slither, Tromeo and Juliet.

Click to shrink...

Uhhh... I really disagree. Guardians was full Gunn. He doesn't need an R-Rating to give his films a distinctive tone. And Obviously Ragnarok couldn't feel entirely like a Waititi, since they're not his characters and he couldn't entirely do what he wanted.

But the same sort of paradigm exists in *all* Mediums and franchises that aren't creator owned. They always have to function with a certain ruleset and frame set. Just like the comic books. And that's fine with me, and it's been fine with pretty much all the directors. People keep talking about the restrictive nature of MCU, but all they have to go off of is what happened with Edgar Wright. And like Feige said about this "These films are very colaborative" - Not to stunt the director and writers, but to be able to continue with the universe they built.

People make the mistake of looking at the MCU entries as singular movies, IMO. They're much like the serials Spielberg and Lucas wanted to ressurrect so badly. They're the Flash Gordons, and the pulpy, cinematic adventures of old that were emulated with Star Wars and Indiana Jones. They're meant to be roughly serial, wich each entry still telling its own story.

Given that perspective, it's perfectly fine that they're doing what they do, that's how they work, and have been working, and I think most directors know that.

Should they go out of their comfort zone, and do more one shots and things that don't have to grip into eachother like cogs? Yeah, I think so.

But I also think that that's exactly what's happening, now that the Infinity Saga is over. None of the Phase 4 films seem to be connected to one another, beyond maybe after credits teases, and I believe those are going to be where they'll be taking risks and trying new things out.

 

[haradaku7]

Like a big kahuna burger.

(sorry if this joke has been made)

 

[Deleted member 17402]

Unsurprisingly this thread has brought out the professors and litigators.

 

[oledome]

Unsurprisingly this thread has brought out the professors and litigators.

Click to shrink...

Causing a pause for the breying mob, they wonder "what does this mean? What is my position?"

 

[Deleted member 17402]

Causing a pause for the breying mob, they wonder "what does this mean? What is my position?"

Click to shrink...

Triggering an identity crisis for some. lol

 

[Servbot24]

Yet here we are commenting on his thoughts in a almost 20 page thread.

makes u think

Click to shrink...

Makes me think Marvel fans are utterly insane if they're collectively this upset at someone calling their movies fast food (which they so clearly are)

 

[More_Badass]

Makes me think Marvel fans are utterly insane if they're collectively this upset at someone calling their movies fast food (which they so clearly are)

Click to shrink...

I mean, I thought that was pretty well understood. Like outside of the rare comic adaptation like the OG Blade, Hellboy, stuff like The Crow and Snowpiercer, superhero stuff has always been inexorably linked with toys, merchandising, comic runs, etc. It's not hating on the MCU, it just is what these adaptations and franchises thrive on

One can simultaneously
- Enjoy and love all kinds of films - arthouse, genre, foreign, classic, blockbuster, b-movie, exploitation, etc
- Enjoy and love MCU movies
- Critique them as being less substantial than many other films and genres
- Understand that them being less substantial isn't an inherent flaw
- Feel they're lesser blockbusters than what was being done in the 70s, 80s, 90s, even early 2000s
- Be impressed with the scope and panel-come-to-life spectacle that the MCU blockbusters are achieving compared to other era's blockbusters

 

[TyraZaurus]

I mean, I thought that was pretty well understood. Like outside of the rare comic adaptation like the OG Blade, Hellboy, stuff like The Crow and Snowpiercer, superhero stuff has always been inexorably linked with toys, merchandising, comic runs, etc. It's not hating on the MCU, it just is what these adaptations and franchises thrive on

One can simultaneously
- Enjoy and love all kinds of films - arthouse, genre, foreign, classic, blockbuster, b-movie, exploitation, etc
- Enjoy and love MCU movies
- Critique them as being less substantial than many other films and genres
- Understand that them being less substantial isn't an inherent flaw
- Feel they're lesser blockbusters than what was being done in the 70s, 80s, 90s, even early 2000s
- Be impressed with the scope and panel-come-to-life spectacle that the MCU blockbusters are achieving compared to other era's blockbusters

Click to shrink...

the issue is more that it feels like one has to agree with each one of these points; that they ARE lesser than other blockbusters and so on, and if you try to argue differently then you're being disingenuous. That comes dangerously close to saying that this specific sort of art criticism is objectively true.

 

[Yossarian]

Keep it up, peeps, we're almost to 20 pages on this thing (again)!

.........

For a little levity (if not, possibly, perspective): if Messieurs Scorsese's, Coppola's, Loach's, etc., sentiments are enough to tweak your delicate sensibilities, perhaps look into the way some of history's most-esteemed artists have spoken of their peers and forebears in their respective mediums...

I present, as Exhibit A, Vladimir Nabokov--he of Lolita fame--and his pricelessly "colorful" takes on various other venerated gladiators of the pen:

http://wmjas.wikidot.com/nabokov-s-recommendations

Click to shrink...

That's hilarious.

 

[BossAttack]

I do wonder if Marvel will ever be capable of producing one great film. One that actually pushes the boundaries, has great cinematography, biting themes, and great characterization. They've had examples that come close, like Black Panther, but they always fall short by retreating to the familiar, stale formula. IMO, the MCU has yet to even reach the level of Star Wars (the good films) when it comes to actual quality.

Shit, just look at the cinematography in TLJ and compare it to any MCU film and their miles apart.

 

[jack_package_200]

I do wonder if Marvel will ever be capable of producing one great film. One that actually pushes the boundaries, has great cinematography, biting themes, and great characterization. They've had examples that come close, like Black Panther, but they always fall short by retreating to the familiar, stale formula. IMO, the MCU has yet to even reach the level of Star Wars (the good films) when it comes to actual quality.

Shit, just look at the cinematography in TLJ and compare it to any MCU film and their miles apart.

Click to shrink...

Part of the problem is that most of the MCU is all shot on the same cameras and color graded the same to maintain a consistent corporate approved aesthetic.

That aesthetic looks like shit.

 

[jett]

I do wonder if Marvel will ever be capable of producing one great film. One that actually pushes the boundaries, has great cinematography, biting themes, and great characterization. They've had examples that come close, like Black Panther, but they always fall short by retreating to the familiar, stale formula. IMO, the MCU has yet to even reach the level of Star Wars (the good films) when it comes to actual quality.

Shit, just look at the cinematography in TLJ and compare it to any MCU film and their miles apart.

Click to shrink...

I'm guessing never because that's not how Marvel works. They command a tight control over the entire production pipeline of their movies. It's not a coincidence that the same writers and editors work on several of their movies. Like take Black Panther for instance. Coogler brought in Michael Shawver as editor, who worked with him on Creed and Fruitvale Station. But Marvel still assigned an editor of their own to the film, Debbie Berman, who had worked on Spider-man Homecoming. And Dan Belental, also credited as editor on Spider-man Homecoming, has worked on Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor The Dark World, Ant-man and Ant-man 2 and Far From Home. And then we have the infamous story about how Lucrecia Martel turned down directing duties on Black Widow because Marvel refused to let her work on the action scenes. The directors aren't in control here.

It ain't ever gonna happen.

 

[jack_package_200]

I'm guessing never because that's not how Marvel works. They command a tight control over the entire production pipeline of their movies. It's not a coincidence that the same writers and editors work on several of their movies. Like take Black Panther for instance. Coogler brought in Michael Shawver as editor, who worked with him on Creed and Fruitvale Station. But Marvel still assigned an editor of their own to the film, Debbie Berman, who had worked on Spider-man Homecoming. And then we have the infamous story about how Lucrecia Martel turned down directing duties on Black Widow because Marvel refused to let her work on the action scenes.

It ain't ever gonna happen.

Click to shrink...

Its weird how disinterested Marvel is in the artistry of filmmaking and any ideas that they feel aren't 100% inline with corporate demands.

Almost like these movies are fast food hamburgers made to on an assembly line.

 

[PrintedCrayon]

Is it gate keeping when they (Marvel/Disney) own the gate?

Click to shrink...

I meant more so in regards to the artform as opposed to the company producing the movie but it's the incorrect term as I've come to learn from this thread.