Martin Scorsese Takes Aim at Streaming’s Lack of Curation and More: ‘Cinema Is Being Devalued by Content’

[The Albatross]

I think I mostly agree with the premise, that we're often overwhelmed by choice. My wife and I end up watching the same shit because we just don't know what else to watch, even though we're surrounded by millions of choices. (not totally streamings fault on this one... This is also the restaurant effect at work, where 1 person can decided in 5 seconds where to eat, but 2 people are locked by indecision)

I think it's actually a bit worse than all content being shown on equal footing to the user, most services have some algorithmic driven recommendation system where a machine tells you what you should watch based on what you've watched before.

There's not an easy solution for this problem and I even really wonder whether it is a problem at all, or just a change. Scorcese is probably frustrated because in 1990 he can make Goodfellas and it can get a 24 month theatrical release, and his studio doesn't release any other major films at the same time, and they give it this full weight of their promotion arm, so it's inescapably *there* for everyone.

Contrast this to 2020 The Irishman launches on Netflix and it's a big hit for 3 or 4 days, and then it gets supplanted by a TV show about a guy who runs an outlaw zoo with exotic animals. I don't know if this format is better or worse than 30 years ago, but it's different and I'm sure for scorcese he prefers the old format where he got to control what people watched and how it was promoted by the studio.

 

[lunarworks]

The other day there was a thread here where someone defended Netflix's "binge" model of releasing series all at once by saying that it doesn't matter if you watch it all in one day, because there's "always something new". That's both a symptom and a cause of all this. Disposable culture pumped out of a firehose.

 

[Djalminha]

It simply means the algorithm of FilmAffinity is better than that of Netflix.

Click to shrink...

It's not just an algorithm, I can see what my friends watch and whether they like it. They can see a list of my highest rated movies of all time. That's curation.

As for the algorithm part, which you can ignore entirely, the thing is you can alter it. You can ask of it: show me the top 50 rated westerns of all time, or the top Scorsese movies, or best movies from the 80s, and then you look through the list until you find what you want to watch. When you're going through that list, you can see if your friends saw that movie and what rating they gave it. So, again, it adds curation to the algorithm. That's why it's so great. Additionally, it combines user rating and professional ratings sort of like Metacritic, as well as any awards the movie/series/documentary got. Again, lots of feedback on the quality of the product, some curated to you, some more general.

Incidentally, sometimes I think "Germán didn't like it, I probably will." 🤣 It works way better, and given how many people use Netflix, they could do something like this. They don't because they try to keep the system too simple, too "casual". For instance, the info provided on movies through the interface is very lacking. Netflix doesn't want you to watch the best stuff, they want you to watch as much stuff as possible and I think that's the root of the problem.

 

[Aya]

 

[Alexandros]

There are billions of people on the earth right now - the idea that they all need to like the same things or that they need experts to tell them what they should be watching is ridiculous.

Click to shrink...

Very well said.

 

[Zombine]

The only issue I ever have when this argument is made, is that a director cant sit there with a straight face and argue about the merits of Italian schlock and low budget grindhouse films and how they influenced them, and then go on to say that their product is being devalued by shit content.

You can't always have your content front and center. Even on Criterion Channel media is shifted or "hidden" and you need to know what you're looking for or you won't know it exists on that platform. That's not even curation that's just a really god awful UI (which CC is guilty of having.)

 

[jdawg]

He's mostly right. But there are reasons to it. The types of things people watch when its included in a fee, and you are free to watch anything tends to be of lower quality. Reason why Adam Sandler was booted out of movie theaters long ago, but people love those terrible movies on netflix.

Some of the movies Netflix has released, wouldn't be released in cinemas without heavy reshoots and retooling. Netflix's main aim is to keep you subscribed. And they do that with constant content, even if they have to have a very low bar of quality control.

You can't make that much crap and keep a high level of quality. The culture of theater going and great adult movies going there, and it being the primary driver of American culture, thats just a by gone era. Viewing habits and trends are completely different. So the devaluing of content had already happened for the last 10 years.

 

[Steiner_Zi]

I will go a step further and argue that this has poisoned pretty much everything, from video games to social media.

It's why so many of the richest YouTubers have content geared towards the lowest common denominator.

Click to shrink...

You see, the same has always been true in media long before Internet streaming got popular. TV was already filled with junk food programs and in cinemas it's been the brainless action flicks and low-level romantic comedies that brought the most money. And don't get me started about books with Twilight, 50 Shades, Dan Brown etc..

The high-quality art films have always been niche and they continue to be in the age of streaming.

 

[entremet]

You see, the same has always been true in media long before Internet streaming got popular. TV was already filled with junk food programs and in cinemas it's been the brainless action flicks and low-level romantic comedies that brought the most money. And don't get me started about books with Twilight, 50 Shades, Dan Brown etc..

The high-quality art films have always been niche and they continue to be in the age of streaming.

Click to shrink...

Yep.

People have this strange misplaced nostalgia. A lot of is our brains playing tricks on us.

I could do this for all mediums:

Film: Studios dictated this and the blockbusters got the most ad time
TV: Probably the safest of mediums until HBO came in the scene with their serialized dramas.
Music: Top 40 dominated taste for ages
Gaming: The gaming renaissance in North America was heavily regulated by Nintendo during the NES. The controlled what was published and approved. They also limited releases--see the Ultra Games loophole.

Today we have more options

 

[CesareNorrez]

As always Scorsese is speaking about a topic with nuance and people take the snips of it and disagree on those. He's right.

You see, the same has always been true in media long before Internet streaming got popular. TV was already filled with junk food programs and in cinemas it's been the brainless action flicks and low-level romantic comedies that brought the most money. And don't get me started about books with Twilight, 50 Shades, Dan Brown etc..

The high-quality art films have always been niche and they continue to be in the age of streaming.

Click to shrink...

This simply isn't true. And people need to stop repeating it. The 70s, in the USA, was filmmaker driven, not studio driven. Which is where Scorsese came out of. And you can look at top grossing films of many years outside of that decade and up to the 90s and you will not see brainless action flicks and low-level romantic comedies being the big earners in this country.

But besides that, it is still missing the nuance of what Scorsese is talking about. This not about high or low art. This about devaluing the art entirely. He's not saying there is no need or benefit to streaming platforms. As usual for Scorsese he is treating it like a complex situation and explicating off of that.

 

[entremet]

As always Scorsese is speaking about a topic with nuance and people take the snips of it and disagree on those. He's right.


This simply isn't true. And people need to stop repeating it. The 70s, in the USA, was filmmaker driven, not studio driven. Which is where Scorsese came out of. And you can look at top grossing films of many years outside of that decade and up to the 90s and you will not see brainless action flicks and low-level romantic comedies being the big earners in this country.

But besides that, it is still missing the nuance of what Scorsese is talking about. This not about high or low art. This about devaluing the art entirely. He's not saying there is no need or benefit to streaming platforms. As usual for Scorsese he is treating it like a complex situation and explicating off of that.

Click to shrink...

This is more an indictment on capitalism, though. Same thing has happened with news for example. Fox News is poison, but it's profitable.

 

[shaneo632]

The only thing I really have against streaming services is hiding their content library. Just let me go through it alphabetically ffs.

 

[werezompire]

This simply isn't true. And people need to stop repeating it. The 70s, in the USA, was filmmaker driven, not studio driven. Which is where Scorsese came out of. And you can look at top grossing films of many years outside of that decade and up to the 90s and you will not see brainless action flicks and low-level romantic comedies being the big earners in this country.

Click to shrink...

Here are the top grossing movies in the US by box office take in the late 70's & the 80's:

1977 - Star Wars
1978 - Superman
1979 - Kramer vs Kramer
1980 - Empire Strikes Back
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark
1982 - E.T.
1983 - Return of the Jedi
1984 - Beverly Hills Cop
1985 - Back to the Future
1986 - Top Gun
1987 - Three Men and a Baby
1988 - Rain Man
1989 - Batman

I see 2 literal superhero movies, 3 Star Wars movie, an Indiana Jones movie, plus some comedies & action movies. The only pure drama I see on the list is Rain Man and it's not like that's a small indie art film (stars Tom Cruise & Dustin Hoffman).

 

[Carn]

I havent had the time to read this whole thread, but pretty much the same applies with music. Streaming lowered so many barriers; a lot of creators (musicians/artists/bands) are now able to create & distribute their material. Which is supercool, but because of this the curating is left to algorithms (instead to, for example, a record label's A&R manager). It levels the playing field, but it also swamps it with "content".

 

[OSHAN]

Here are the top grossing movies in the US by box office take in the late 70's & the 80's:

1977 - Star Wars
1978 - Superman
1979 - Kramer vs Kramer
1980 - Empire Strikes Back
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark
1982 - E.T.
1983 - Return of the Jedi
1984 - Beverly Hills Cop
1985 - Back to the Future
1986 - Top Gun
1987 - Three Men and a Baby
1988 - Rain Man
1989 - Batman

I see 2 literal superhero movies, 3 Star Wars movie, an Indiana Jones movie, plus some comedies & action movies. The only pure drama I see on the list is Rain Man and it's not like that's a small indie art film (stars Tom Cruise & Dustin Hoffman).

Click to shrink...

Filmmaker driven, not studio. The list proves that.

 

[golguin]

I don't need anything "curated" to me thank you. Technology has allowed access to more creators that have historically been ignored and demeaned by those in positions of power. I watch more content from streamers and youtubers than any acclaimed director or movie studio.

I wonder how much of the stuff I watch wouldn't even exist if people like him were in charge of what I had access to. I always wondered what kind of person would pay for something like the Criterion Channel, but I guess it's the kind of people that agree with him.

 

[matrix-cat]

Here are the top grossing movies in the US by box office take in the late 70's & the 80's:

1977 - Star Wars
1978 - Superman
1979 - Kramer vs Kramer
1980 - Empire Strikes Back
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark
1982 - E.T.
1983 - Return of the Jedi
1984 - Beverly Hills Cop
1985 - Back to the Future
1986 - Top Gun
1987 - Three Men and a Baby
1988 - Rain Man
1989 - Batman

I see 2 literal superhero movies, 3 Star Wars movie, an Indiana Jones movie, plus some comedies & action movies. The only pure drama I see on the list is Rain Man and it's not like that's a small indie art film (stars Tom Cruise & Dustin Hoffman).

Click to shrink...

Wikipedia has a page where you can go through the top ten highest-grossing movies by year, which is really interesting to look at. The number one is often the big blockbuster, but numbers 2 through 10 are much more varied in genre and overall scale throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. As late as 2000 you still see a lot of original concepts, dramas, thrillers, comedies making the top ten, but they're gradually replaced by entries in established series over the course of the decade, and from about 2010 onwards the lists are almost exclusively franchise stuff.

 

[Tobor]

Wikipedia has a page where you can go through the top ten highest-grossing movies by year, which is really interesting to look at. The number one is often the big blockbuster, but numbers 2 through 10 are much more varied in genre and overall scale throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. As late as 2000 you still see a lot of original concepts, dramas, thrillers, making the top ten, but they're gradually replaced by entries in established series over the course of the decade, and from about 2010 onwards the lists are almost exclusively franchise stuff.

Click to shrink...

Yes, but this was a 40 year transition process that has nothing to do with streaming. Streaming didn't even exist during this transition.

Scorsese has been consistent in complaining about this for 40 years, he's just shifted his focus to streaming.

 

[OSHAN]

I always wondered what kind of person would pay for something like the Criterion Channel, but I guess it's the kind of people that agree with him.

Click to shrink...

I imagine people that enjoy movies would pay for the Criterion Channel.

 

[Striferser]

Let's not overlook that this change in the entertainment industry has resulted in a TON of new opportunities for women, people of color, and queer folks.

Is quality control an issue? Sure. But "curation" always seems to chiefly benefit white dudes, doesn't it?

Click to shrink...

Let's look at Martin Scorsese favorite movie since it is kind of curation

Martin Scorsese’s Favorite Movies: 82 Films the Director Wants You to See

'The Death Collector,' 'TÁR,' 'Pearl,' 'The Shining,' 'Ikiru' and more of Martin Scorsese's favorite movies and film recommendations.

www.indiewire.com

It feature a movie from various country with various genre. His suggestion is infinitely better than algorithm to expand your taste.

I don't think curation chiefly benefit white dudes, it really depend on whose curation you see.
What we need is to raise curation from minority to introduce work that resonate with them. I think we can all agree that platform like Netflix should probably do that alongside with algorithm

 

[golguin]

I imagine people that enjoy movies would pay for the Criterion Channel.

Click to shrink...

As someone who can't remember the last movie I even saw in theaters or at home I suppose that checks out.

Then again I don't know anyone who subscribes to that and most people I know enjoy watching movies so it's clearly not for "people that enjoy movies." What is their subscriber count like?

 

[Tobor]

I imagine people that enjoy movies would pay for the Criterion Channel.

Click to shrink...

It's a narrower niche than just "enjoying movies". You can enjoy movies and not be interested in the type of movies they offer.

 

[deathsaber]

Yeah, sorry, just not going to get into the "against" streaming camp.

Its simply a means for there to be a whole lot more content than there was without it, from a bigger variety of sources.

Does it mean there's a whole lot of crap out there, perhaps exponentially so? Absolutely. But theres also been globs of quality stuff exclusive to the medium that wouldn't have happen.

I think Marty is mainly affected because he is a lover of the old school theater experience, and the movie theaters have literally been brought to their knees by the pandemic and are literally staring extinction in the face right now, but even in "healthier" times, lets face it- they want blockbuster films that people pack into, not art house classics with low attendance. Like it or not, streaming services are where his kinds of films are going to be predominantly made now, and frankly that audience mostly just wants to "Netflix and Chill" now.

Basically, times are changing, and theaters are becoming more and more useless now (excepting the high end audio/visual presentation of big budget event films that you couldn't quite get at home- but that's pretty much their primary use now)

 

[MrKlaw]

Algorithms suck because I may never see critically acclaimed stuff in my feed because its genre doesn't match my normal watching habits.

Click to shrink...

you can have more than one algorithm. Maybe something that is more daring on recommendations?

but really if you're looking to be adventurous and haven't watched anything like that before isn't it more likely you'll just search for genres/artists you've heard of, or look for recommendations externally?

 

[MrKlaw]

Maybe have guest curator rails on services and rotate between people

 

[Osahi]

As a non-american movie watcher I can't understand how an american audience perceives movies in general so it's possible that there is some cultural bias on both sides but personally I strongly feel that the average modern superhero film is not just better but in fact leagues above the average action blockbuster of the last 30 years that I've been watching movies. I can't think of a single thing that older blockbuster films of the same type did better except maybe the action itself since I mostly share the dislike of heavy CGI usage in modern films.

For me the main advantage that modern superhero films have over the average action blockbuster of yesteryear is the more interesting character work. Fundamentally, the average superhero character is just way more interesting than the average action hero. We can talk about this in more detail but I'd like to hear first about some movies that you consider representative of the action blockbuster so that we have a frame of reference.

Click to shrink...

I'm not American either (but be honest, 90% of our entertainment is American), and I fundamentally disagree. I think the character work in the MCU is quite underdevelopped (and it gets worse the longer it goes), and the Universe idea makes that character progress is slow and often without stakes. They work more with unchangeing (but wel characterized) archetypes, character development is often in smaller steps or even reverts back from time to time, etc.

It's not all like this, there are examples where it is done in a good way, often in the first movie of a character(the first Iron Man comes to mind, the character dynamics in the first Avengers movie and in Guardians of the Galaxy, ...), but those are more the exception than the rule.

One of my bigger gripes though is that because of the shared universe storytelling style these movies made popular, they shy away from real tangible consequence. A character falling out of the sky has a robot-assisted suit the next moment keeping him in the action. Civil War that is about a fundamental disagreement between heroes, having them fall apart, and afterwards that falling apart is not really explored anymore in the next movies because they're kept apart or they resolve their issues in the first act to get the story going (in stead of having the fallout of the issue being the actual conflict, the potential is there!). Characters evolve, unless they don't. Spider-Man ends his first big movie with denouncing being an Avenger because he's not ripe for it yet (even though the movie kind of shows us he was?), but in the next movie he becomes one anyway without there really being a true motivation for it, let alone a new step in his character growth (not that there is space for that in a film with 22 characters or something). And the next big adventure of his he's already doubting again if he should be one. It's often all so muddled and vague and two steps forward and then one step back. Frankly, I don't think it is very good storytelling at all. Let alone good character work. The characters are defined well and recognisable and relatable, but they don't really change over the course of all these movies, nor do they really learn and discover stuff.

And than there is the fact that most MCU movies have become very formulaic and samey, and quite forgetable. Scorsese got a lot of flack by calling them 'not cinema', but he wasn't completely wrong either. With some exceptions (usually the best of the bunch) the director's voice has been drowned out in those movies, to the extent that sometimes action scenes are already 'locked' in previz before a director comes aboard. (This was apparently the case with Black Widow). I mean, with their bland cinematograpy the first Phase basically looks like a bunch of made-for tv-movies, and even later films don't always escape that.

And they're killing the space for original work. Like I said, its as much a symptom as a cause, but the releases slate is nog so cramped with superhero stuff (next to live action remakes and Star Wars), that there is little room for anything else. You can like superhero movies as much as you want, but you can't deny that the lack of variety is a detriment to blockbuster cinema. And I'm saying this as someone who has seen every MCU-film since Avengers 1 theatrically in its first week, and who is a huge fan of Star Wars and can't get enough of it)

There is (or was) a broad range of blockbusters btw. It's not just 'action' movies. You had Jurassic Park before it became a franchise, which has great character work and an actual clear theme the story and characters explore, next to stuff like E.T., Die Hard, Back to the Future, Jaws, Indiana Jones etc, etc etc. It's baffling to me that you can claim older blockbuster don't have good (or worse) character work, when amost of these classic blockbusters actually have their screenplays written with clear character arcs and themes in mind way more than current super-hero flicks. Some of these are pure entertaintment, but most of these have at least also have something to say. They're frankly way better told stories than the majority of the MCU.

 

[hiredhand]

Here are the top grossing movies in the US by box office take in the late 70's & the 80's:

1977 - Star Wars
1978 - Superman
1979 - Kramer vs Kramer
1980 - Empire Strikes Back
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark
1982 - E.T.
1983 - Return of the Jedi
1984 - Beverly Hills Cop
1985 - Back to the Future
1986 - Top Gun
1987 - Three Men and a Baby
1988 - Rain Man
1989 - Batman

I see 2 literal superhero movies, 3 Star Wars movie, an Indiana Jones movie, plus some comedies & action movies. The only pure drama I see on the list is Rain Man and it's not like that's a small indie art film (stars Tom Cruise & Dustin Hoffman).

Click to shrink...

The biggest difference between this list and a similar list of the 13 most recent years is the amount of original screenplays on it.

1977 - Star Wars -> original
1978 - Superman -> based on a comic book
1979 - Kramer vs Kramer -> based on a novel
1980 - Empire Strikes Back -> sequel
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark -> original
1982 - E.T. -> original
1983 - Return of the Jedi -> sequel
1984 - Beverly Hills Cop -> original
1985 - Back to the Future -> original
1986 - Top Gun -> original
1987 - Three Men and a Baby -> based on a French film
1988 - Rain Man -> original
1989 - Batman -> based on a comic book

Over half the films (7/13) are original screenplay and only two are sequels.

Now compare that to the last 13 years. The difference is quite stark.

2008 The Dark Knight -> based on a comic book, sequel
2009 Avatar -> original
2010 Toy Story 3 -> sequel
2011 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 -> based on a novel, sequel
2012 The Avengers -> based on a comic book, sequel
2013 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire -> based on a novel, sequel
2014 American Sniper -> based on a memoir
2015 Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens -> sequel
2016 Rogue One: A Star Wars Story -> sequel
2017 Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi -> sequel
2018 Black Panther -> based on a comic book, sequel
2019 Avengers: Endgame -> based on a comic book, sequel
2020 Bad Boys for Life -> sequel

1 original screenplay, 11/13 films are sequel.

 

[Amspicora]

The biggest difference between this list and a similar list of the 13 most recent years is the amount of original screenplays on it.

1977 - Star Wars -> original
1978 - Superman -> based on a comic book
1979 - Kramer vs Kramer -> based on a novel
1980 - Empire Strikes Back -> sequel
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark -> original
1982 - E.T. -> original
1983 - Return of the Jedi -> sequel
1984 - Beverly Hills Cop -> original
1985 - Back to the Future -> original
1986 - Top Gun -> original
1987 - Three Men and a Baby -> based on a French film
1988 - Rain Man -> original
1989 - Batman -> based on a comic book

Over half the films (7/13) are original screenplay and only two are sequels.

Now compare that to the last 13 years. The difference is quite stark.

2008 The Dark Knight -> based on a comic book, sequel
2009 Avatar -> original
2010 Toy Story 3 -> sequel
2011 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 -> based on a novel, sequel
2012 The Avengers -> based on a comic book, sequel
2013 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire -> based on a novel, sequel
2014 American Sniper -> based on a memoir
2015 Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens -> sequel
2016 Rogue One: A Star Wars Story -> sequel
2017 Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi -> sequel
2018 Black Panther -> based on a comic book, sequel
2019 Avengers: Endgame -> based on a comic book, sequel
2020 Bad Boys for Life -> sequel

1 original screenplay, 11/13 films are sequel.

Click to shrink...

tbf the idea that American movies were too heavily based on third party source like novels is older than most people think. Andre Bazin did an essay of how American cinema was too much based on books or novels and he wrote it in the early 50's, so it's not a novelty per se. At the time movie production was not dominated by only one country though.

 

[CrazyDude]

The biggest difference between this list and a similar list of the 13 most recent years is the amount of original screenplays on it.

1977 - Star Wars -> original
1978 - Superman -> based on a comic book
1979 - Kramer vs Kramer -> based on a novel
1980 - Empire Strikes Back -> sequel
1981 - Raiders of the Lost Ark -> original
1982 - E.T. -> original
1983 - Return of the Jedi -> sequel
1984 - Beverly Hills Cop -> original
1985 - Back to the Future -> original
1986 - Top Gun -> original
1987 - Three Men and a Baby -> based on a French film
1988 - Rain Man -> original
1989 - Batman -> based on a comic book

Over half the films (7/13) are original screenplay and only two are sequels.

Now compare that to the last 13 years. The difference is quite stark.

2008 The Dark Knight -> based on a comic book, sequel
2009 Avatar -> original
2010 Toy Story 3 -> sequel
2011 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 -> based on a novel, sequel
2012 The Avengers -> based on a comic book, sequel
2013 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire -> based on a novel, sequel
2014 American Sniper -> based on a memoir
2015 Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens -> sequel
2016 Rogue One: A Star Wars Story -> sequel
2017 Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi -> sequel
2018 Black Panther -> based on a comic book, sequel
2019 Avengers: Endgame -> based on a comic book, sequel
2020 Bad Boys for Life -> sequel

1 original screenplay, 11/13 films are sequel.

Click to shrink...

This isn't streamings fault. Also it ignores the rise in tv series quality.

 

[Rover]

For someone who applauded a rapist at the Oscars, with another rapist sitting in the row behind him, Scorsese seems unwilling to define the actual problem with cinema.

 

[hiredhand]

This isn't streamings fault. Also it ignores the rise in tv series quality.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying it is. I was just commenting on the claim that 70's was less studio driven. Netflix has actually been almost a counter force to this trend because it doesn't have any old IPs to mine. Unfortunately it has thus far not been very succesful with its bigger films.

There being much more quality drama in tv might affect the box office prospects of film dramas (though American Sniper is a curious exception in the newer list) but that doesn't really explain the lack of fresh IPs. Only two of the films on the list are dramas. The problem is that there are like two directors who could get a project like Star Wars or Back to the Future greenlighted in today's Hollywood.

 

[Alexandros]

I'm not American either (but be honest, 90% of our entertainment is American), and I fundamentally disagree. I think the character work in the MCU is quite underdevelopped (and it gets worse the longer it goes), and the Universe idea makes that character progress is slow and often without stakes. They work more with unchangeing archetypes, character development is often in smaller steps or even reverts back from time to time, etc.

It's not all like this, there are examples where it is done in a good way, often in the first movie of a character(the first Iron Man comes to mind, the character dynamics in the first Avengers movie and in Guardians of the Galaxy, ...), but those are more the exception than the rule.

One of my bigger gripes though is that because of the shared universe storytelling style these movies made popular, they shy away from real tangible consequence. A character falling out of the sky has a robot-assisted suit the next moment keeping him in the action. Civil War that is about a fundamental disagreement between heroes, having them fall apart, and afterwards that falling apart is not really explored anymore in the next movies because they're kept apart or they resolve their issues in the first act to get the story going (in stead of having the fallout of the issue being the actual conflict, the potential is there!). Characters evolve, unless they don't. Spider-Man goes through a whole arc denouncing being an Avenger because he's not ripe for it yet, but it the next movie becomes one anyway without there really being a need for any character growth or a true reason for it (not that there is space for that in a film with 22 characters or something). And the next big adventure of his he's already doubting again if he should be one. It's often all so muddled and vague and two steps forward and then one step back. Frankly, I don't think it is very good storytelling at all.

And than there is the fact that most MCU movies have become very formulaic and samey, and quite forgetable. Scorsese got a lot of flack by calling them 'not cinema', but he wasn't completely wrong either. With some exceptions (usually the best of the bunch) the director's voice has been drowned out in those movies, to the extent that sometimes action scenes are already 'locked' in previz before a director comes aboard. (This was apparently the case with Black Widow). I mean, with their bland cinematograpy the first Phase basically looks like a bunch of made-for tv-movies, and even later films don't always escape that.

And they're killing the space for original work. Like I said, its as much a symptom as a cause, but the releases slate is nog so cramped with superhero stuff (next to live action remakes and Star Wars), that there is little room for anything else. You can like superhero movies as much as you want, but you can't deny that the lack of variety is a detriment to blockbuster cinema. And I'm saying this as someone who has seen every MCU-film since Avengers 1 theatrically in its first week, and who is a huge fan of Star Wars and can't get enough of it)

There is (or was) a broad range of blockbusters btw. It's not just 'action' movies. You had Jurassic Park before it became a franchise, which has great character work and an actual clear theme the story and characters explore, next to stuff like E.T., Die Hard, Back to the Future, Jaws, Indiana Jones etc, etc etc. It's baffling to me that you can claim older blockbuster don't have good (or worse) character work, when amost of these classic blockbusters actually have their screenplays written with clear character arcs and themes in mind way more than current super-hero flicks. Some of these are pure entertaintment, but most of these have at least also have something to say. They're frankly way better told stories than the majority of the MCU.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for the detailed response. I disagree with most of the things you said because many of the things you find missing from superhero films, I find not only present but very strong indeed. As a quick example based on the films you mentioned, the division of Civil War directly led to the disaster of Infinity War. Spider-man is impulsive, jumps into action, pays a heavy price and then clearly experiences PTSD as he struggles to find his place in the new world. I have never, ever felt that superhero movies are lacking in stakes, especially compared to older blockbusters.

Regarding the examples you mentioned, I am probably going to shock you but I find Superman, Spider-man, Batman and Iron Man infinitely more compelling characters than John Mclane, Marty McFly, Indiana Jones etc. The movies themselves are fantastic but the characters are basic archetypes with very little backstory to make them truly compelling. To use an example from similar time periods, I would take Michael Keaton's Batman over Bruce Willis' John Mcclane every time, even though I consider Die Hard a superior blockbuster to Batman 1989.

 

[Richiek]

This simply isn't true. And people need to stop repeating it. The 70s, in the USA, was filmmaker driven, not studio driven. Which is where Scorsese came out of. And you can look at top grossing films of many years outside of that decade and up to the 90s and you will not see brainless action flicks and low-level romantic comedies being the big earners in this country.

Click to shrink...

The 70s were an aberration in American cinema. The studios were struggling because they were losing younger audiences to TV and allowed filmmakers to take control to try to reverse their fortunes. Hollywood has been producer-driven for the majority of its existance and when Heaven's Gate flopped in the box office, the studio execs took control back.

 

[Wackamole]

There will always be fewer people who are actually able to appreciate craftsmanship. It's also a process of knowing what to look for, i guess.
Don't worry about it. Just keep making things the best you can and the few that do notice it will be happy for it
It's like this for everything. Movies, books, music, food, etc. And the people who don't notice the difference will call the others elitists.

 

[bdbdbd]

Eh, maybe the rise of "content" has more to do with simply starting to amass a critical amount of finished works that naturally lent itself to people who needed to be more invested in managing catalog than cultivating "cinema" and didn't have the luxury of making arbitrary distinctions between plenty of B-movie schlock, generic TV sitcoms and someone's cat videos. It is all content, Martin, but some of it certainly deserves further distinction/curation and there's nothing about streaming as a delivery mechanism that prevents that. That's all down to policy.

These pieces defending waning industries that arose from specific technological pathways are always interesting to twist around from the perspective of the technology that is subsuming or replacing them: what if streaming had come before film?

 

[Commedieu]

It's greedy film companies that are to blame. Eventually they need more porsches. Art doesn't matter if fart jokes get them more porsches. Another capitalism problem.

 

[Kill3r7]

Fans will curate their own films. The rest don't care and want to consume content.

 

[Aprikurt]

Culture has been, and always will be full of disposable puerile entertainment. I'm not in a hurry to lick Scorsese's boots either.

 

[Atraveller]

I want to preface this post by saying that I've done extensive research on diversity in the film and television industry, since it is my master thesis. The construction of the narrative that Martin Scorsese is an old guard protecting his interest while denigrating the new comer is absurd. For one, Scorsese is dedicated to the restoration and preservation of films directed by BIPOC and women for years, not just in the United States, but around the world as well:

He's also heavily involved with film preservation and has founded multiple non-profit organizations dedicated to preservation throughout the years. The dude is absolutely obsessed with cinema.

Click to shrink...

If people have bothered to read the article, you'll notice that how Scorsese recognized streaming's hand in funding projects today, what he's writing about is the library arms race started with all the emerging streaming platforms and the algorithms. Streaming platforms, particularly Netflix, are interested in enlarging their libraries to entice potential subscribers with little care about their quality. Netflix churns out critically panned movies on a monthly basis and shows that they have no interest in renewing past season 2 due to bad engagement.

Scorsese is the oldest old dude around. Even older directors or his peers aren't as fear mongering as this dude about the future.

Click to shrink...

Martin "Nobody will make The Irishman except Netflix" Scorsese shits on streaming platforms? These old white guys are so unbelievably overrated, old hollywood needs to die already.

Click to shrink...

He's wrong about this, it's an old man tells at clouds comment.

Click to shrink...

Just shut up old man.

Click to shrink...

The idea that the algorithms are evil is dumb. You can always search for content. I watched like 15 films on criterion recently by simply filtering the search results according to what I wanted.

Movies had a big flaw which was the notion of a time constraint. That's gone. We can get more diversified and original stories as well as from more countries now because constraints are disappearing.

Years ago French directors and actors complained the movie theatres in France were only playing American movies. Streaming fixed this.

Click to shrink...

First of all domestic film quota was made into law many decades ago in France, second of all, how do you know what to search for you're not familiar with movies, well, you were not unfamiliar with? The crux with algorithm like it is in social media, is that it's easy to stay in a bubble constructed by your viewing habits and corporations. matrix-cat answered beautifully:

People saying "You can just search for what you want to watch" aren't seeing it. Yes you can search for something you want to see, the problem is you have to because otherwise the algorithm will just trap you in a cycle based on the last thing you watched. Akin to the Youtube echochamber effect, or the way Amazon will email you about these five other lawnmowers you might like to buy since you just bought a lawnmower, movie recommendation algorithms will just endlessly spit out new movies similar to the last one you watched. You watched this '90s action movie, maybe you'd like to watch this other '90s action movie. Oh, you watched two '90s action movies in a row? That must mean you only ever want to watch '90s action movies for the rest of your life. Coming right up, chief.

And what Marty's getting at about Content is that the algorithm can't judge movies on anything other than the keyword descriptor tags that have been entered into its database, in a process that, by necessity, dispassionately breaks works of art into content that can be digested by computer code. Who decides which tags best represent a movie? Whose job is that, and are they doing it well? I'm sure you can think of examples of two movies that might be made in different decades, in different genres, but are nonetheless linked by a certain indescribable quality, and you'd happily recommend one to a fan of the other, but a recommendation algorithm could never make that leap because it can only interpret movies as a group of keywords.

Finally, just look at the kind of content a streaming service like Netflix actually carries. It's whatever big recent blockbusters they can get their hands on, a whole lot of low-rent ripoffs of said blockbusters, and precious little of anything before like 2010. Because the data and the analytics say that those are what people want to see, so those are the only movies the algorithm even can serve up for you, which in turns drives up the viewership numbers of those genres and makes them more likely to be recommended which drives up the numbers again, etc. Sorry, the classics and the lesser-known gems don't make the big bucks, the analytics say the money would be better spent on late 2010s movies from this genre with this currently-hot star.

Click to shrink...

But what's so bad about the future really? Isn't progress in technology good? Wouldn't streaming truly democratized film and television? Not exactly.

Let's not overlook that this change in the entertainment industry has resulted in a TON of new opportunities for women, people of color, and queer folks.

Is quality control an issue? Sure. But "curation" always seems to chiefly benefit white dudes, doesn't it?

Click to shrink...

The democratization of media is probably the best thing to ever happen to it. There are a lot of interesting projects we wouldn't have if distribution was still controlled by a handful of companies.

But unfortunately a lot of people enjoy watching garbage. Things that don't really have a lot of artistic or intellectual ambition. Things that promote harmful attitudes and behaviors. Things that capitalize on human suffering. The algorithms just make sure they don't run out of garbage to watch. I guess people just have to be more aware of what they're consuming since the curation is also democratized.

If we're being completely honest with ourselves, Hollywood isn't any better than the algorithms sometimes. The production values are just better.

Click to shrink...

I'm not saying he's wrong, but I'd rather have what we have today because it gives more opportunities regardless of your gender, skin color, ethnicity or religion.

Click to shrink...

This was exactly my initial reaction, particularly given how Scorsese's built a career off of romanticizing the 20th century White experience.

Love his work but we gotta call a spade a spade here when it comes to the thinly veiled elitism he manifests and expresses (and tries, but fails to preemptively buffer because he knows the rarefied air he breathes). He serves to lose from the level playing field, which, though I agree is not purely democratic, now gives a shot to different kinds of entertainment outside of what is narrowly defined as Scorsese-approved curation.

It's kind of amazing how all the anxieties of the filmmaking elite fall apart when you think about how it gives the underprivileged more opportunities as well, particularly given how many different avenues there are for financing indie films now. To the powerful, equality feels like oppression, and all that.

Click to shrink...

With the rise of "Quality TV", cable channels such as HBO carve out a niche by embracing the "cinematic", hiring "auteur" show runners, and seeking out unique minority voices. Even if you're a cynic this is still worth applauding. But really, streaming platforms aren't really as "progressive". According to UCLA's annual The Hollywood Diversity Report, streaming actually has (slightly) worse on-screen and behind-the-scenes diversity than broadcast and cable television, even though Silicon Valley companies are "hip and cool." But streaming really isn't democratizing anything, considering how most of the newcomers today are extensions of old powers, thanks to corporate consolidation enabled since 80s' Reaganomics. HBO Max (AT&T), Disney Plus (Buena Vista), Peacock (NBC), etc. With how complex and expensive the streaming infrastructure is, you can't really build your own without a massive capital backing, otherwise CDN providers like Akamai or Amazon wouldn't even do business with you.The old studios controlling the creative voices just changed hands or with a newer layer of paint. When you consider the diversity hiring that do occur, one must consider the power of culture hegemony, and the limits on free expression that works in the same principle as the Big Three in television; recall Endgame and Rise of the Skywalker's so-called LGBTQ representation. Additionally, streaming platforms' opacity when it comes to the operation of algorithms and audience engagement makes it so that creatives themselves don't even know how well their movies or shows are performing, which impacts the way contract negotiation works: no more residuals. There is real labor impact with streaming, and not for the better.

Let's be clear here, the increasing prioritization of "content" and it's ties to global capitalism and predatory algorithms is problematic at best, nightmarish at worst.

But fuck cinema.

Film started as a gimmick, a technology that existed simple to show off new advances in light capture, and later sound. Over the past century or so it got co-opted by the wealth and the elite, who curated plenty of straight white guys to tell their stories while women were preyed upon on casting couches and POC were relegated to the "help."

The monster that Scorsese is railing against is the spawn of the Old Hollywood machine that Scorsese inhereted and helped build. It was always invetiable. Cinema is dead. We can still appreciate what it gave us, like how history gave us The David or The Last Supper. But all that shit is dead, and nothing's bringing it back.

Click to shrink...

It is true that the racist society in America has segregated Hollywood for the longest time. But you're writing about film as content, and not as art. Cinema is capital-intensive and that places a huge barrier for marginalized voices, but that doesn't mean marginalized voices considered this method of expression not worth their time. Just as discrimination exist since the birth of Hollywood, figures like Oscar Micheaux were eager to make themselves heard, despite all the bullshit.

Scorsese might be in Hollywood for a long time, but he's not someone like James Cameron, who makes entertainment that made most use of the industry (not like there's anything inherently wrong with that). Scorsese is not the superlative of Hollywood. He just a guy who likes the art and wants more people get aquatinted with it, including the history of minority triumph that gets buried under mainstream commercial "content" that big corporations want to make money off.

Consoomer mentality:

This is close to peak old man yelling at clouds.
I want everything ever made at my fingertips and I'm mostly fine with how it's recommended, in small part because my recommendations are only a tiny portion of what I watch.
I don't give a single fuck about what someone tells me is great, either. It's for me, or it isn't. Some of what he worships I also love, Some of it you couldn't pay me to watch again.

Click to shrink...

 

[Deleted member 4461]

You see, the same has always been true in media long before Internet streaming got popular. TV was already filled with junk food programs and in cinemas it's been the brainless action flicks and low-level romantic comedies that brought the most money. And don't get me started about books with Twilight, 50 Shades, Dan Brown etc..

The high-quality art films have always been niche and they continue to be in the age of streaming.

Click to shrink...

It's not necessarily about "high quality art films," but their ability to be discovered on a level playing field with anything else. People - myself included - will always love the popcorn & always have. The issue is that now content has to be created for the sake of content, and in a particular way to please the algorithm.

There are certainly ways to get movies & anything else visible outside of relying on that, but it's way more friction and effort. If you like X, you will be shown more things like X. These platforms can't predict that you might be up for Y today. It ends up being a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating way more "popcorn" and less stuff with more substance.

 

[Deleted member 24079]

Bad movies have been a thing since film started and it only recently started to wane along with the non huge blockbuster movie industry in general until streaming money started to get injected into it.

I agree that 95% of Netflix original content is terrible but would the other 5% even exist when the industry was just chasing MCU level junkfood? Indie films are finally getting more attention thanks to streaming as well when before they had to get lucky with an Oscar nom or some other old white dude comittee to nominate them.

This just reminds me of the people who shit on Steam for "curation" because indie games have to be perfect or critical darlings to have any chance of getting a buy and feeding small devs just starting out, etc.

edit: I'll add that if Netflix was the only choice and most of film became reliant on their algorithms and money in general then yeah that would be a huge problem but thanfully there are some big competitors in the mix now.

Click to shrink...

Agree

 

[entremet]

Let's look at Martin Scorsese favorite movie since it is kind of curation

Martin Scorsese’s Favorite Movies: 82 Films the Director Wants You to See

'The Death Collector,' 'TÁR,' 'Pearl,' 'The Shining,' 'Ikiru' and more of Martin Scorsese's favorite movies and film recommendations.

www.indiewire.com

It feature a movie from various country with various genre. His suggestion is infinitely better than algorithm to expand your taste.

I don't think curation chiefly benefit white dudes, it really depend on whose curation you see.
What we need is to raise curation from minority to introduce work that resonate with them. I think we can all agree that platform like Netflix should probably do that alongside with algorithm

Click to shrink...

Marty is a subject matter expert.

This is what librarians are technically as well.

He's asking too much from technology. Even in a pre streaming world, did we ask this much from movie theatres and Blockbusters in its heyday?

I have no issues with Marty's passion for film and highlighting different voices, but he's barking up the wrong tree. It's not Netflix's responsibility to curate content.

Would I like it? Sure.

A modern example of this in another medium is Apple Music and Spotify. Apple went big on curated content and radio shows. Spotify relies on its algo.

 

[Vault]

did Scorsese sleep through the 90s?

VHS already devalued Cinema, any idiot with a camera could make a movie and get it distributed

video stores were filled with mountains of shit

Streaming services are just doing the same

 

[Conal]

Can we go back to 'curating' minorities out of the movie industry PLEASE.

 

[BringBackSonics]

It's a narrower niche than just "enjoying movies". You can enjoy movies and not be interested in the type of movies they offer.

Click to shrink...

Or not finding comparable movies in services they might already have. Every service has 'arthouse'/'indie' movies. I'll again mention Hulu with having a pretty robust selection of 'arthouse' flicks.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I want to preface this post by saying that I've done extensive research in diversity in the film and television industry, since it is my master thesis. The construction of the narrative that Martin Scorsese is an old guard protecting his interest while denigrating the new comer is absurd. For one, Scorsese is dedicated to the restoration and preservation of films directed by BIPOC and women for years, not just in the United States, but around the world as well:


If people have bothered to read the article, you'll notice that how Scorsese recognized streaming's hand in funding projects today, what he's writing about is the library arms race started with all the emerging streaming platforms and the algorithms. Streaming platforms, particularly Netflix, are interested in enlarging their libraries to entice potential subscribers with little care about their quality. Netflix churns out critically panned movies on a monthly basis and shows that they have no interest in renewing past season 2 due to bad engagement.





First of all domestic film quota was made into law many decades ago in France, second of all, how do you know what to search for you're not familiar with movies, well, you were not unfamiliar with? The crux with algorithm like it is in social media, is that it's easy to stay in a bubble constructed by your viewing habits and corporations. matrix-cat answered beautifully:



But what's so bad about the future really? Isn't progress in technology good? Wouldn't streaming truly democratized film and television? Not exactly.



With the rise of "Quality TV", cable channels such as HBO carve out a niche by embracing the "cinematic", hiring "auteur" show runners, and seeking out unique minority voices. Even if you're a cynic this is still worth applauding. But really, streaming platforms aren't really as "progressive". According to UCLA's annual The Hollywood Diversity Report, streaming actually has (slightly) worse on-screen and behind-the-scenes diversity than broadcast and cable television, even though Silicon Valley companies are "hip and cool." But streaming really isn't democratizing anything, considering how most of the newcomers today are extensions of old powers, thanks to corporate consolidation enabled since 80s' Reaganomics. HBO Max (AT&T), Disney Plus (Buena Vista), Peacock (NBC), etc. With how complex and expensive the streaming infrastructure is, you can't really build your own without a massive capital backing, otherwise CDN providers like Akamai or Amazon wouldn't even do business with you.The old studios controlling the creative voices just changed hands or with a newer layer of paint. When you consider the diversity hiring that do occur, one must consider the power of culture hegemony, and the limits on free expression that works in the same principle as the Big Three in television; recall Endgame and Rise of the Skywalker's so-called LGBTQ representation. Additionally, streaming platforms' opacity when it comes to the operation of algorithms and audience engagement makes it so that creatives themselves don't even know how well their movies or shows are performing, which impacts the way contract negotiation works: no more residuals. There is real labor impact with streaming, and not for the better.



It is true that the racist society in America has segregated Hollywood for the longest time. But you're writing about film as content, and not as art. Cinema is capital-intensive and that places a huge barrier for marginalized voices, but that doesn't mean marginalized voices considered this method of expression is not worth their time. Just as discrimination exist since the birth of Hollywood, figures like Oscar Micheaux were eager to make themselves heard, despite all the bullshit.

Scorsese might be in Hollywood for a long time, but he's not someone like James Cameron, who makes entertainment that made most use of the industry (not like there's anything inherently wrong with that). Scorsese is not the superlative of Hollywood. He just a guy who likes the art and wants more people get aquatinted with it, including the history of minority triumph that gets buried under mainstream commercial "content" that big corporations want to make money off.

Consoomer mentality:

Click to shrink...

How do I know what to search for?

"I like this actor/director/writer, let's see what else they did."

Or "Let's see, movies set in the Napoleonic era."

You know how I do that? Internet search! Google. IMDB. Oh no the horror of the evil algorithms!

Like it would have been easier in the 90s, yeah right.

What a non-issue. This is really complaining just for the sake of it.

 

[Osahi]

Thank you for the detailed response. I disagree with most of the things you said because many of the things you find missing from superhero films, I find not only present but very strong indeed. As a quick example based on the films you mentioned, the division of Civil War directly led to the disaster of Infinity War. Spider-man is impulsive, jumps into action, pays a heavy price and then clearly experiences PTSD as he struggles to find his place in the new world. I have never, ever felt that superhero movies are lacking in stakes, especially compared to older blockbusters.

Regarding the examples you mentioned, I am probably going to shock you but I find Superman, Spider-man, Batman and Iron Man infinitely more compelling characters than John Mclane, Marty McFly, Indiana Jones etc. The movies themselves are fantastic but the characters are basic archetypes with very little backstory to make them truly compelling. To use an example from similar time periods, I would take Michael Keaton's Batman over Bruce Willis' John Mcclane every time, even though I consider Die Hard a superior blockbuster to Batman 1989.

Click to shrink...

The MCU is very good at creating the illusion that these are well-explored themes and that their are consequences. But if you actually start analysing, it often falls apart.
I mean, Civil War kind of ends where it started. The heroes disagree in the set-up, and they still do by the end. There is no clear winner. No one the movie tells us was right. It doesn't take any position, because it has nothing to tell. And anything that smells like tangible consequence is resolved or smoothed over asap. The movie already ends with the locked up heroes getting freed in the stinger (iirc) and Cap sending Tony a sort of make-up note. They are never really pushed to the brink, and never really forced to make hard choices. This means there is also nothing really hard to overcome later on.

I don't even see how Civil War leads to the events of Infinity War? Thanos was showing up anyway, and both 'sides' of the Civil War don't change their opinions because if it. Do you mean they would've defeated Thanos when working together? Because that's not true. Even apart they have at least two chances of defeating him, and both are fucked up not because they are apart, but because characters act in a way the story prescribes. (Star-Lord being stupid and Thor not going for the head). These characters never really face hard choiced and hard consequences, even though, like I said, the movies are good at having us believe they do.

Where does Spider-Man have PTSD? In Far From Home? He's more mourning than anything else. As a character, he keeps reverting back to someone who can't handle the burden of responsibility. In Homecoming (a movie I like a lot btw) he tries to prove the whole movie that he is ready to take that responsibility and be an Avenger, and at first fails a lot because he's to hot-headed, but by the end he succeeds and shows he can handle it. And then he gets accepted as an avenger and decides to decline for... reasons I guess. It's a movie that has an arc and then for no reason at all actually decides to revert it at the end, with a character who has proven he's capable accepting he's not or something. It's very muddy. Than in Infinity War he goes hot-heated into the action again and gets promoted again (for reasons, I guess) and this time accepts like it's some kind of huge arc, but nothing has changed at all. In Far From Home (one of the worst of the bunch) he is finally an Avenger with responsibility, but because of course his whole archetype is about being young and maybe not ready and the burden of responsibility, he's again doubting his capabilities and ready to shove his responsibility to the next guy. You see how these characters keep reverting back to where they were? They are never really forced to change (except in their origin movies, that's why I like the first Phase more than the later ones) and evolve. Imo it hollows out the power of story.

After I've seen a Marvel movie I often can't really summerize what the movie is actually about. What it's telling me. But I can often do that with a lot of older and better blockbuster . They explore themes, and/or have characters that make difficult choices and change because of what they experience. They don't give us the illusion they changed, but are different by the end. Not all blockbuster movies are like this of course, but then they don't even try to keep that illusion. And I'm not saying super-hero movies can't do this either. Some of them do (most first phase movies, the earlier X-Men movies, Raimi's Spider-Man, ...), but since the MCU completely took over the blockbuster space this kind of storytelling has watered down, a lot. So no, I don't believe they have made American blockbusters better. On the contrary, they have killed the space for blockbuster that try better. (And again, I like the MCU. it's entertaining. it's just very sad it's becoming all there is)

 

[Atraveller]

did Scorsese sleep through the 90s?

VHS already devalued Cinema, any idiot with a camera could make a movie and get it distributed

video stores were filled with mountains of shit

Streaming services are just doing what blockbuster did

Click to shrink...

You can browse a video store by walking the isle, or you can ask a clerk for recommendation if they know their stuff. What you see on a streaming service's UI is what a streaming service want you to see.

How do I know what to search for?

"I like this actor/director/writer, let's see what else they did."

Or "Let's see, movies set in the Napoleonic era."

You know how I do that? Internet search! Google. IMDB. Oh no the horror of the evil algorithms!

Like it would have been easier in the 90s, yeah right.

What a non-issue. This is really complaining just for the sake of it.

Click to shrink...

What a dumb take. How would someone google Djibril Diop Mambéty if they don't know that he exists.

 

[nachum00]

Can we go back to 'curating' minorities out of the movie industry PLEASE.

Click to shrink...

That's not what Scorsese is interested in. Google The African Film Heritage Project.

 

[SeeingeyeDug]

you can have more than one algorithm. Maybe something that is more daring on recommendations?

but really if you're looking to be adventurous and haven't watched anything like that before isn't it more likely you'll just search for genres/artists you've heard of, or look for recommendations externally?

Click to shrink...

of course. But it sucks to sit at the TV trying to figure out what to watch while Netflix removes things like easy genre browsing and so now I need to bust out my phone or iPad to get some ideas because the clunky interface lacks a lot of features to easily find new content that stretches outside of my algorithm.