-
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
Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were forgettable and dull, Return of the Sith was good for me, but still was tainted by the terrible direction than the whole trilogy had. Still, I think that did a decent job on explaining Vader background
For the fifteenth time, "they need to be what I want to see" isn't them doing better than they are, or want to, but you wanting them to be more for you than they currently are.
Some of these people did the same thing in the Endgame vs Avatar box office threads. In their heads they built up a narrative that there was a massive legion of Avatar stans in this forum. Avatar fucking stans. If you're not with them, then you're clearly part of an opposing, equally insane fanboy contingent.
edit: didn't see the mod post buried in the thread until after I made this one. No point in taking it down now I guess.
Last edited:
Not gonna deny that, I was never that invested into the original trilogy (which is awesome) and the prequel were my first exposure to the series, so I was never with high expectations watching, maybe that's why I don't really hate them, just find them boring. The funny thing is, the memes elevated their status into the "so bad is good" although not good enough to watch them again, just to look at it and laugh at how terrible it was
No more or less insane than throwing everyone who enjoys MCU films into the same damn basket. And it's not like you're not in every single MCU thread voicing your distaste of those films. ;)
That's fair. I liked the Clone Wars cartoons, but to override the prequels awfulness rather than elevate it.
to be fair, I would probably try to duck it as well if I made an argument that dumb in a public forum before realizing it so no hard feelings on this end
If nothing else the MCU should be lauded for its format alone.
20+ films all set within the same universe, an ongoing plot, with characters who age and change and grow.
Never been anything like it on this scale. Any attempt to replicate it fails. For cinema this format is new and exciting when done right. Cinema as a long form medium.
20+ films all set within the same universe, an ongoing plot, with characters who age and change and grow.
Never been anything like it on this scale. Any attempt to replicate it fails. For cinema this format is new and exciting when done right. Cinema as a long form medium.
Last I checked, pretty much every single one of them. <shrug>
You're trying to say that those films need to objectively be better so you can subjectively enjoy them more, whilst ignoring that your opinion is neither objective, nor is that standard one the makers of those films will actually have. They're not purposefully underachieving or turning in "lesser products".
iirc they've directed The Winter Soldier's and Civil War's action scenes (they were second unit directors on those).
Edit: only Civil War, TWS had different crew.
Give them Black Widow. They won't have to deal with superpowers or Keanus dad bod holding them back
I think that second point is very valid. Just two people hitting up the movies can be 49 bucks depending on where you live.
That doesn't mean that ScarJo or anyone else from the cast can pull off Wick/Atomic Blonde level of action scenes, just look at Hobbs & Shaw and count how many cuts happen when Idris Elba on the screen.
Nice straw-man. Nowhere did I say that my idea of how Marvel movies can be better is objective. Do I need to begin every single sentence with "well in my opinion..."
It's all in the phrasing, though. When you judge their quality, and "how good they can be" in the way you did, it's hard to feel like you're just giving your opinion on what they're worth to you. When making films an artist can't cater to what everyone wants or need. That's like me saying Scorcese has a lot more potential, just because The Departed is a botched adaptation of Internal Affairs.
I should just say that while I understand where Marty is coming from, I disagree that the MCU isn't "cinema." No one said they were good cinema or great cinema, but they are cinema. That they crowd out the market or are comfortably safe in their mediocrity, unwilling to push the envelope, that they lack a real craft and vision behind the lens not dictated by the studio, all of that is a separate conversation as to whether they qualify as cinema.
They are cinema. They're just boring, safe cinema.
Co-signed.
They are cinema. They're just boring, safe cinema.
Co-signed.
If you mean IA2 and IA3, then yeah, I agree. Other than that they turned tight as hell cop thriller into buffoonery.
Nolan films weren't that great either in my opinion but that's primarily to do with my issue with Nolan's choice to use the same structure for every film (not watched Dunkirk and have no intention of doing so), but the films also stripped out the character from the original works with a lifeless city and rejected the campy and noir aspects.
But they were better in many other aspects which you alluded to that aren't in the MCU films.
I will happily eat at a fine michelin starred restaurant but would also be just as happy going to eat ay my favourite burger, pizza, or ramen joint on the same day. MCU films are like good burgers. But I agree with Marty in that these burgers can stifle the rise of smaller quality dishes from up and coming productions
However, Joker is like a burger made by an expensive restaurant. I mean it has all the trimmings of a dish from a fine diner and delicous, but in the end it is still a steamed ham with lipstick
However, Joker is like a burger made by an expensive restaurant. I mean it has all the trimmings of a dish from a fine diner and delicous, but in the end it is still a steamed ham with lipstick
Only for Civil War, to be precise. And although there are no details to their involvement, I'd wager that they specifically worked on the airport fight and the bucky/tony/steve fight, since they're shot and edited so differently from everything else in the film.
I'll personally take some of the buffoonery in TD over the overwrought melodrama in IA.
Uh, Farmiga/Damon/DiCaprio triangle was more melodramatic than anything in the original. Plus, there's always Wahlberg as an icing on the cake. (yeah, I know he was nominated for an Oscar for the role).
You know, looking at the Heimat series...
It's not really the same?
The closest thing it gets to being a "cinematic universe" in the vein of the MCU is the final 2 films but even then that is stretching it. Because movies with one spin off and a prequel does not make a cinematic universe.
It's just a movie series showing a family over the course of years. There was no spin offs that would eventually crossover. There was no big crossover movie.
This would be like saying JoJo's Bizzare Adventure is a "cinematic universe"
Just from what I was reading on the wiki.
Each movie was split up into episodes detailing the history of the family from 1919 to 2000.
There was 1 spin off focusing on the women in the family set around the 1960s.
And then a prequel set during the 1840s.
Sorry but that isn't a Cinematic Universe. The amount of movies there is still impressive but it's not a Cinematic Universe. Cinematic Universe doesn't mean: "This series has a ton of movies".
At least if you referenced say the Godzilla movies and it's various era's you'd have something since those movies did actually crossover and spin off into their own things. Though that was often muddied whenever a new "era" began and they would usually start over again but not completely over as some movies would be kept.
4 out of the 10 highest grossing movies of all time are Marvel movies.
2 out of 5 highest grossing movies of all time are Marvel movies from the same directors.
22.585 billion of 23 movies. That's 983 million average.
Last Spielberg movie was Ready Player One. Last Scorsese movie is financed by Netflix so this "real cinema" talk is funny to me.
So it's ok for you to critique (wrongly, of course) movies you haven't seen, but it's not ok for Scorsese to do so? Et tu?
Okay so you clearly are not arguing in good faith and are just trolling.
Also where am I critiquing those movies? Not being a cinematic universe isn't a critique.
Saying that Harry Potter is a 8 movie fantasy series based on a book isn't "critique".
Do you actually know what critiquing is?
The marvel films have become a genre unto themselves. It's also IronMan and everyone else and that's big problem. I don't think the films have improved very much since their phase 1 era of bland retreads of the same formula. There are highlights here and there - a lot of them can be enjoyable to watch - but I wonder how much of their appeal is also tied to the times. You're guaranteed a story where good always wins and Iron Man shows up once in a while to quip. Good looking smart people who get cool powers and become more attractive and even stronger?
I get the appeal, I really do - but there's no meat to chew on with these films. You see one, you've really seen them all. I don't really leave the theatre with anything. They are amusement park rides. Nothing wrong with that.
But Marvel has "won." There is no need to get excited about Scorsese's opinions. He's earned the right to have them. If you're TRULY chafed by them, take a step back and wonder if it really matters to care.
I get the appeal, I really do - but there's no meat to chew on with these films. You see one, you've really seen them all. I don't really leave the theatre with anything. They are amusement park rides. Nothing wrong with that.
But Marvel has "won." There is no need to get excited about Scorsese's opinions. He's earned the right to have them. If you're TRULY chafed by them, take a step back and wonder if it really matters to care.
"Nah Marvel fans have the highest grossing movie of all time. Something neither Mr expert or Spielberg could achieve. "
Are you playing a character or something? You're not being serious with this, right?
Yes, it does. In order to restrict or limit access to something, which is the definition of the term, you need to be in a position of power.
Marty, is not a gatekeeper.