I somehow missed this gem of a post. This really should have ended this thread.
-
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.
Martin Scorsese clarifies his Marvel movies comments: ‘There is only one Spielberg, Lucas
- Thread starter Scullibundo
- Start date
I somehow missed this gem of a post. This really should have ended this thread.
I think what he's trying to get at is those directors have most/all of the creative input in the production of their films. They're not being churned out at a rapid pace with a clear formula with all creative input coming from the studio/producers.
I think the problem now is that major studios these aren't interested in listening to the business case for a film like Schindler's List, even if you do them a solid by making a blockbuster. Hell, given the subject matter of the film's plot, I doubt that Mrs. Doubtfire would get made in quite the same way today, as if you take away Robin Williams, you come pretty damn close to the plot of a Noah Baumbach film without his presence.
I still agree with Scorcese that Marvel movies are themepark rides because the majority fit a very specific template but I don't see that as strictly a negative. I've enjoyed the money I spent and even with the various template restrictions you can still get some depth in exploring certain questions these movies allow us to ask ourselves before it is resolved in a sequel.
Though when he makes a comment like this:
He sounds like an old man yelling at clouds so he should be more careful when elaborating further on his point.
Though when he makes a comment like this:
He sounds like an old man yelling at clouds so he should be more careful when elaborating further on his point.
George is one of the most successful filmmakers of all time who did what he wanted with his art while still building a billion dollar franchise. Why wouldn't he cite him?
I think to suggest the films are "churned out" is a bit disengenuious. The amount of pre production and planning that goes into these films is insane. A lot of it is out of the control of the director but Marvel films rely dont really on the concept of the auteur and that's ok.
However I dont really disagree with Scorcese's take either, I just think it's silly to suggest Marvel movies are lazily made just because theres like 2-3 movies a year, when in reality it's more like 4-5 films or more are all being produced at the same time with huge work put into all the projects.
However I dont really disagree with Scorcese's take either, I just think it's silly to suggest Marvel movies are lazily made just because theres like 2-3 movies a year, when in reality it's more like 4-5 films or more are all being produced at the same time with huge work put into all the projects.
A24 is great, but they work because they operate with an ideal budget ceiling in mind ($10 million and change). You can't make a film like Schindler's List on $10 million these days without major compromises on the scope and production design.
The gatekeeping comments are especially ridiculous. Some people won't be content until Disney literally hoards all forms of media.
Scorsese has done a beastly amount of work signal boosting the work of directors from across the globe, yo.
He's not a money man, he cannot do anything to make Hollywood a creatively freer, risk-taking enterprise.
Yeah true.
Though to be fair it looks like the budget was 25 million, which is less than 50 today. So I think it could get made still.
When people let their favorite media franchises become a part of their very identity, anything negative is seen as a criticism toward themselves and what they like. See also angry Star Wars fans that claim every new Star Wars movie "raped their childhood" since The Phantom Menace. People are allowed to like, criticize, and say whatever they want. Martin Scorsese isn't harming anyone lol.
The studio system is almost as old as film itself. It is the norm within Hollywood in every generation. There are only a few Hollywood auteurs and like Deakins and Zimmer are used over and over by the studios because they are a known quantity, well received and can handle big budgets.
Isn't it obvious that he is talking about those men because they were visionaries and completely changed the way movies are seen? Jaws birthing the first modern blockbuster, Star Wars setting the standard for fantasy and science fiction for nearly half a century while Lucas created the definitive special effects department of the industry with ILM, Cameron working against all odds to innovate the technical fields and create new experiences? Not to mention all of them are auteurs that had to directly work against their own studios and fight for their passions? I think the only director/producer/show runner in this category that I would include here from Marvel would be Feige doing the impossible and creating a successful cinematic universe where no one else seems able.
Movies are all the same. There's no difference between a good one and a bad one except how an individual's brain processes the sound and visuals.
And ultimately that's not for anyone to judge anyone.
It's all relative, quality has no meaning. If you think it does that's just you trying to enforce your own worldview on someone else.
An ugly duck by any other name is still a swan.
Last edited:
He is the one who brought aliens into Indy 4. He may have struck a hit with the original trilogy but all after that was a straight decline. The OG may have only happened because there were people around him who kept him in check.
Effort and insight are also meaningless artistic endeavors.
Much as existence is but an empty simulation in which free will is a hoax.
I'm a huge MCU fan, but I get where Martin is coming from. Smaller movies and passion projects are being pushed to the side in favor of blockbusters in general, which is a real problem. I'm sure there's a mixture of blame to be laid at the studio's feet as well as theater chain owners. They both see dollar signs that translate from concessions and ticket sales, so they'll push those tentpole movies harder.
He had the very successful American Graffiti far before Star Wars, which was what gave him the room to make Star Wars. It isn't like he was some one hit wonder. I mean, the prequel movies suck, but he's the very reason we have visual effects at all with ILM and the tropes in Star Wars are the foundation for so many works in film and fiction.
Exactly there is no canonical good movie.
Quality is a myth with no exceptions, none, the best film can be the worst film in the eyes of any given person, there is no gold standard. Some might prefer David Fincher, others Broken Lizard and if we judge them truly do we not judge ourselves.
No shit, Sherlock. No one ever said they were ever trying to be. There dumb popcorn flicks that people enjoy seeing. You're arguing over times simply changing, as they always have. I'm sorry you have to go to Netflix to get people to see your films nowadays. Go rant about with your buddies Roman P and Woody. You'll still get your Oscar noms.
I don't think so. Prior to Star Wars science fiction of a similar type was the super corny B movie, his influences for Star Wars were clear and strong, the samurai movie in space and it changed the direction of fantasy science fiction.
I mean as a film goer I like continuity and storytelling and while yes their technically a massive theme park ride it's still impressive that marvel made such a massive continuity. Aside from marvel I still go to the movies to laugh to cry to feel fear. The theatre is still a good place for art and even if your film doesn't do well I still would have probably saw it if it suited my interests. That said martins comments touch on films by directions that are just as thrillparky as any. That said movies are a type of escapism and any film has its rights and audience to see it in theatres popcorn muncher or not.
He's not arguing. He was asked a question during a interview. He answered. Now some people are making a huge deal out of what he said because some people take it personal.
Well, I judge myself constantly anyway (thanks Mom!), so I'm cool with that.
I'm mostly baffled that millions of thirty somethings gobble this shmutz up. Millennial media is all about cookie cutter escapism, and I don't understand why. I would understand if the primary demographic was young teens, but it's not, so what gives?
This is the best post I've seen on Era in weeks, probably months.
I agree with the last quote. Marvel movies don't strike me as auteur style cinema. Having a good director at the helm definitely makes a difference but the best director of a marvel movie IMO can only make a really good marvel movie vs something that is distinctly theirs. It's actually why I liked Joker a lot outside of Joaquin. I felt that it was very much a movie that the director wanted to make for himself. I just don't get that with Marvel movies. They're all definitely cut from the same cloth, even the best ones. I'm sure I'll get lots of hate and disagreement on that but it's just how I view it personally.
I still think he's being weirdly condescending about it all but I agree that there's a difference between those and Wes Anderson flicks and whatever other director like the ones he listed.
But I've felt lots of emotions and hype and everything just in end game alone for example. So to tell me it's not as valuable is insanity. But I also KIND OF get the overall place he's coming from.
I still think he's being weirdly condescending about it all but I agree that there's a difference between those and Wes Anderson flicks and whatever other director like the ones he listed.
But I've felt lots of emotions and hype and everything just in end game alone for example. So to tell me it's not as valuable is insanity. But I also KIND OF get the overall place he's coming from.
there are literally people on this forum that say this.
You'd have to be blind to not see it. In fact the response to Marty saying these things proves people consider these films a higher value than dumb popcorn flick. If people really felt that way they wouldn't be pressed and throwing out strawmen and ad hominem against Marty.
Sure, people here say that kind of stuff. It's kind of silly for them to say it, but it doesn't devalue how those people feel about it. All movies intend to evoke a response, it just turns out that fandom based ones evoke stronger ones.
You ever hear the story about the global chicken hormone crisis of 1975?
Those people created the kind of summer blockbuster movies that are the bread and butter of Marvel movies, so this just comes off as an old man yelling at the clouds.
well then even less to be mad at. He should have simply said "the big blockbusters are changing expectations and consumer/production studio behaviour at the expense of these other movies". Which is a pretty common belief and a lot less controversial. Throw fandom into the mix of weird wording and...yeah.
One of the exceptions that proves the rule. And even then, it's attached to a comic book franchise.
I'd argue we've had quite a few R-rated success in the recent years.
