-
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.
Martin Scorsese clarifies his Marvel movies comments: ‘There is only one Spielberg, Lucas
- Thread starter Scullibundo
- Start date
All of these posts about what made what, you know he's referring to the New Hollywood era, right? Which ended in the early 80s. Ever since the major studios have been chasing big money with blockbusters. The directors lost control. Major studios aren't interested in high art films anymore. This wasn't because of the MCU as studios had already changed their focus. It's just gotten to the point now that unless it's a small studio, it's going to be hard to get production started on "high art" films.
You misinterpreted the statement completely. it went over your head. He's talking about how most movies that have taken over the theatre are just emulating them rather than doing their own thing.
Lucas, Cameron and Spielberg created the blockbuster and now that's all most movies are at the movie theaters.
Lol
Right so holding MCU responsible and calling them an invasion is a bit silly if the issue began in early 80s, which was my point with all these things.
It does, if he makes the point that it's more 'theme park' then 'cinema'.
Even that isn't really accurate. Avatar's ecology themes are not subtle but they're entirely what the movie is about.
It's not "here's 2 hours of action effects and oh some thing about the environment". That theme is the crux of the movie. You'd have to be a total moron to watch the movie and not pick up on that.
Even Micheal Bay has his own style of directing, especially when it comes to action set pieces and overall look of his movies
Also Spielberg had this to say about Ready Player One.
"This is not a film that we've made, this is — I promise you — a movie," he informed the sold-out crowd at the Paramount Theatre, which gave him a long, raucous ovation. "It's a movie that's got to be seen on the big screen, and I'm wondering if this is a big-enough screen, because we made this with a lot of ambition to really fill the screens."
I think what Spielberg means with film, is the same what Scorsese means with cinema. Ready Player One isn't cinema, Schindler's List is.
God forbid people give a movie a standing ovation at Cannes. That poor film can no longer be classified as Cinema!
OP
OP
he's only saying that there is a great distinction between art and reflecting The human condition and how it relates to ourselves and popcorn munching, mindless, action sequences and endless one-liners.
I enjoy a marvel movie as much as the next guy but to not recognize what he's trying to say here is just being stubborn about what is considered art and what is to be considered entertainment
I enjoy a marvel movie as much as the next guy but to not recognize what he's trying to say here is just being stubborn about what is considered art and what is to be considered entertainment
I'm pretty sure Cameron's ass would get on fire if Scorsese said his shit was not cinema.
You know it's true.
Damn. Haven't seen a post this truthful since your Disney post back at the old place.
Hes right that its a new type of movie, but I find it wierd that he calls it "an invasion". Whos invading what? Makes it sound like an old man take.
OP
OP
Cameron's films actually have something going on beneath the surface. Since people keep bringing up T2, there is an earnest, palpable fear of nuclear dread that bubbles all throughout that film that you can tell is very personal to Cameron. And as such, it plays potently. It's memorable and affecting.
Aliens is a brilliant abortion allegory for the Reagan 80s. The script for that film is incredibly smart when you begin breaking it down.
Cameron's climate change fears are something that he has worn on his sleeve since The Abyss, that he was much less subtle about in Avatar, but it is still a potent allegory because his honest passion feeds it. It doesn't feel like a cynical attempt to ride a wave of public opinion.
And this is just talking about thematic depth. Forget the performances Cameron and Spielberg mine in their blockbusters. Ed Harris and Elizabeth M, Weaver in (her Oscar nom'd) Aliens performance, the 'give us a kiss' scene in JAWS or any number of scenes in ET.
Then you can look at craft. How Spielberg and Cameron block their films. The artistry of how they move through a space to convey information visually. Spielberg is second to none and in a league of his own here. While Cameron is the undisputed master of choreographing set pieces.
It is these facets, but also the transportative quality that Scorsese admires in the blockbusters of these two (and Lucas' Star Wars). If you look to Scorsese's love letter to Méliès in Hugo, you'll know how much fondness Scorsese has for the idea of the filmmaker as a magician who is able to convincingly transport an audience somewhere and leave them wondering how they did that.
These are just some of the differences between the work Cameron and Spielberg's popcorn films and the Marvel films Scorsese obviously doesn't have the same admiration for.
Aliens is a brilliant abortion allegory for the Reagan 80s. The script for that film is incredibly smart when you begin breaking it down.
Cameron's climate change fears are something that he has worn on his sleeve since The Abyss, that he was much less subtle about in Avatar, but it is still a potent allegory because his honest passion feeds it. It doesn't feel like a cynical attempt to ride a wave of public opinion.
And this is just talking about thematic depth. Forget the performances Cameron and Spielberg mine in their blockbusters. Ed Harris and Elizabeth M, Weaver in (her Oscar nom'd) Aliens performance, the 'give us a kiss' scene in JAWS or any number of scenes in ET.
Then you can look at craft. How Spielberg and Cameron block their films. The artistry of how they move through a space to convey information visually. Spielberg is second to none and in a league of his own here. While Cameron is the undisputed master of choreographing set pieces.
It is these facets, but also the transportative quality that Scorsese admires in the blockbusters of these two (and Lucas' Star Wars). If you look to Scorsese's love letter to Méliès in Hugo, you'll know how much fondness Scorsese has for the idea of the filmmaker as a magician who is able to convincingly transport an audience somewhere and leave them wondering how they did that.
These are just some of the differences between the work Cameron and Spielberg's popcorn films and the Marvel films Scorsese obviously doesn't have the same admiration for.
I have already answered this but would 90 movies over 4 decades as well as being some of the most popular movies with the biggest budgets and special effects of the time, popularising the characters and stories to become a part of a global lexicon but were already very popular to begin with. With the films being a mix of connected stories, stand-alone and cross-overs which also established the movie franchise, also by one of the biggest movie studios of the time and were made to a studio style fit the bill?
Come to think of it Universal Monster might have even inspired the Marvel and DC shared universe from the original comics as they were that popular, they definitely had cameos in them.
Last edited:
Convinced people don't actually understand what gatekeeping is.
Scorsese is not in a position to prevent comic book movies from being made or being presented. He literally cannot be considered a gatekeeper.
Marvel releases 3 films a year out of thousands. These people need to fuckin get a grip. Count how many movies release in theatres every year and tell me what the ratio is from Low budget to blockbuster.
Last edited:
First of all, that's two people, not one.
Second of all, Stanley Kubrick's ghost am cry
Black Panther has the final confrontation in which you can't literally see the black costumed characters in front of a black backdrop. Horrible cinematography.
But he wasn't friend with Kubrick. He is friend with the guy who hasn't made movies in the last 15 years after spending decades about aaaall the movies he could make if only he didn't have to do Star Wars.
Love Scorsese, but who cares what he thinks? It would be more surprising if he liked Marvel movies.
Roma got nominated for best picture last year and I think their docs have won in the past.
Yes. Spielberg invented the theme park ride movie. He should just say he thinks these are more shallow than the old theme park rides like jaws, ET and the Indiana Jones movies.
I mean you only need to see the impact these older films have had on society / meme (I mean it in the actual sense of the word not memes on Facebook) etc.
The score from jaws or Jurassic park, the shots in terminator 2 of him walking out of the bar with the leather jacket, liquid metal, shots / setups from aliens (even the motion detector used in the story is amazing in film), and even some of the lines that come out of these films. ET phone home, the shot of ET flying over the moon, etc. these old films are part of the social conciousness now, in terms of visually how they are, how they sound, the characters and dialogue.
that means something. In 20 years time what will we remember from the MCU infinity saga? Serious question. I feel we will remember "I am iron man" and the snap. That's about it though.
black panther easily but who knows what would be remembered 20 years from now. Phantom Menace came out 20 years ago and people still actively talk about.
Becuase it's far better than any of those movies in nearly every way?
Funnily enough this week theaters are showing Alien for it's anniversary.