Every single one of us loves movies that we know are crap, but they were hugely influential on us when we were younger. I could recite a bunch of films that I now recognize are clearly not good, but I retain a warm spot for them nonetheless. I don't run around claiming they're misunderstood classics, though!
The only exception to that will be the Fantastic Four films when they do hit the screen. While not much beloved, those Fox films well at the box office with the 1st two. The third…well the less said the better Oand the first one even though it did have a certain goofy, low budget charm to it plus…add in that most of the world had never seen it or even heard of it).
The 2000s "FF" movies did okay but given their era, I think they weren't especially successful. "FF" was only 13th for 2005, and "Surfer" was 18th. Not flops but below what I think Fox expected - by a lot.
Stuff like "Jaws 2" and "The Wiz" remain beloved by me, though I can't claim I actually enjoy watching them beyond warm 'n' fuzzies. Actually, I'm not sure I have any childhood faves that are objective crap. Most are not good but not terrible, I think.
I think the problem Tarantino and Scorsese have about the MCU is more about what it isn't than what it is. Both like to make highly stylized auteur films. They are literally the vision of one person even if the source material comes from somewhere else. And each movie is it's own singular piece. The MCU comes from 50+ years of storytelling and ideas of multiple generations of writers and artists as interpreted by scores of filmmakers. And never before has anybody attempted to translate that huge of a universe into a super-connected multi-film/television show and make it work. It's just never been a thing or even possible. There have been long running stories/films that have usually focused on one big story at a time... Star Wars, Planet of the Apes, Rocky, etc., etc. But never in this scope with this many deep dives into individual characters and ideas that connect to the whole. At this point there have been 30 feature films in 14 years. Additionally there have been 8 Disney+ series directly connected to the MCU (and featuring 57 episodes). Additionally there were 11 other series with Marvel characters with varying degrees of connection to the general MCU. This scope is incredible and unprecedented and certainly not the kind of thing either Tarantino or Scorsese could even wrap their heads around. In the same time since 2008, Scorsese has released 5 feature films (and 6 documentaries) and Tarantino has made 4 features. They both made some great movies in that time... and some less great. But the point is, this isn't the world of cinema that they know or appreciate. But... they don't have to. So their opinions aren't really all that important or relevant to the idea of the MCU and in fact their comments come off as sour grapes or the cranky complaints that only tarnishes their own reputations imo. Finding excuses why the MCU movies aren't good is a foolish exercise because at this point the huge amount of content is beyond pointing to one thing as the issue. The reason the MCU works is because of the wide-variety of stories and humanity. If a movie doesn't work (which many of them at this point don't), it isn't because a character didn't have cool enough beams coming out of their eyes or the stunt work wasn't good or the CGI was terrible (looking at you She-Hulk), it's because of all the reasons why regular movies work or don't. The story is confusing or the motivations are questionable or the acting is bad or whatever. It is regular cinema. It either works or doesn't based on the same reasons why people love or hate Django Unchained or The Irishman.
The Marvel movies, I don't think, can be considered traditional movies. The studio itself views them as "entertainment content." Every year they lay out what films will be coming out for the next few years. They have no screenwriter, or director, or even a script. But, a movie is going to be made with a specific character who will have to hit certain plot points for the story of the overall "universe" to continue. That universe is constructed to appeal to certain demographics, and encourage the purchase of certain merchandise, video games, streaming services, etc... When the director for Black Widow was hired, they didn't even have a finalized script yet, nor a screenwriter, but they already had two or three action scenes in post-production, as they were very long and complicated, and required a lot of post-production. That is really weird. Imagine being brought onto a project as a director and being told "Yeah we don't have a script, any ideas you have would be great, but these are the characters you have to use, and there has to be a long car chase scene in Prague at some point in your movie 'cause it's already in the can..." That isn't to say they can be well made and entertaining movies. However, from the studio's point of view, the quality of any of the particular films is secondary to the end goals of forwarding the story line for the entire series of films. My main issue with the films, which I think reflect their comic book origins, is "spectacle scaling." After the Avengers save the world in the first Avengers movie, they then have to save the world again in the second, then the entire universe in the third and fourth. I think a couple of individual Avengers also save the world a few times in their standalone films. So, where do you go from there? Save the universe again? Save other universes? If they can defeat Thanos equipped with the I-Can-Do-Anything gauntlet, is any further adversary a credible threat?
You're not going to like hearing this, but it isn't just Marvel that does this. It's every major action film made by every major studio. And this has more or less been true for decades. Have you heard Kevin Smith's routine about when he was brought on by Jon Peters to make a Superman movie in the '90s? The movie had already been announced, it had a release date, it had a premise, and there was no script, no director, no nothing -- except Jon Peters had a whole list of action scenes in his mind that he wanted to put in the movie. Many of them ended up in Wild Wild West instead! Just to name two examples that were in production in the 1980s, both Total Recall and Alien 3 went deep into production without a script or director or actors hired. Sets were built, action sequences were mapped out, etc. The only difference is that with previz, they're getting to the point where the producers can physically show a version of the movie to the creatives before it's even shot. The Marvel stuff is quite similar to those productions in that it has an "idea producer" in the form of Kevin Feige who is essentially setting the premises and parameters for each project before the "creatives" are hired.
The problem with your reasoning is that everything is taken from something and so these points are moot before they even get their foot out the door. It's ridiculous to suggest that some work of art has the title of being the "original" story about alienation or true crime. "Taxi Driver" stands on its own regardless of its inspirations because of the combination of writing, performance, and direction, which is all one needs to ask of it. Whether you like it or not is one thing, but trying to make it sound like the film is overly contrived is just pure faux-erudite posturing.
They "can't wrap their heads" around it? What cave do you think someone like Quentin Tarantino lives in that he can't grasp the scope of the MCU? Like do you think Hollywood is so compartmentalized that he doesn't know people who work outside of his particular films? Have you ever actually listened to him speak on this subject or are you just grabbing at soundbites and headlines?
Yes I’ve listened to him speak. I find him an interesting person. But like all a flawed human being. And one who has long had his ego stroked enough that he probably believes his own b.s. I mean... Hollywood is an ego machine right? And the only reason he was asked about this was because he is a filmmaker. Now... one might simply say "I don't really have an opinion of them because they aren't the kinds of movies I like to watch" and that's it. But instead he comes up with this ridiculous answer about Hollywood stars, etc. It's the kind of non-expert answer you'd expect from a barfly on a Sunday afternoon espousing while an old tv plays Iron Man in the dive bar corner. So yes sometimes he does live in cave... which would be his own rear end. I've heard him say that he read Marvel Comics in the 70s but I would have to guess that he wasn't a huge fan of them. So he probably just misses the reason why fans think they are special and he filters it through his own preferences as a filmmaker. You can be aware of how others do things and still not be able to understand why, right? Just awareness alone doesn't automatically equal acceptance or understanding. It would be like a documentarian or a director of family entertainment watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and being confused at the ending and why that was necessary or why they sat for 2 hours leading up to this imagined ending of a real event. They know that Tarantino makes this kind of movie... but they might not understand the choice.
Except you're blending a ton of different concepts without distinguishing one point from the next. Sure, Tarantino has a massive ego, but where did he say that he doesn't actually like these movies or doesn't watch them? Furthermore, Anthony Mackie made the exact same point about movie stars in the Marvel system a few years ago--is he also out of touch? It just seems like your drawing conclusions out of thin air and not actually listening to what he's saying.
Sorry, didn't mean to burst your reality bubble. Here's an article about it: A Resurfaced Clip Shows Anthony Mackie Agreeing With Quentin Tarantino on “The Death of the Movie Star”
Well said. But I think maybe it's simpler than that. The genre and stylistic approach of MCU eclipses the attempts at camp and humor by Tarantino. His humor always feels awkward, stilted and boxed-in. MCU is all about breaking the mold and surprising the audience. What they did with Thor is brilliant to humanize him and make him more relatable to a mass audience, giving him a "dad bod" and making him fail like a mere mortal. The Jane arc was hilarious whereas most interpretations would wallow in the tragedy of it. My take is that QT is jealous of the box office dollars these films generate, and it makes him lash out irrationally.
What's even more humorous is watching people react to things Tarantino didn't actually say or even suggest. But do go on about irrationality.
My suspicion is that some of these directors might be implicitly or explicitly objecting to the producer-heavy nature of Marvel movies. I mean, huge money effects pictures already tend to have too many cooks in the brew, as the studios want to ensure they don't lose their investment. With Marvel movies, there is the additional requirement to make the movies connect and have them upsell the later films in the series as well as payoff the previous ones. Perhaps an iconoclastic talent like Tarentino doesn't like seeing this trend? The <insert name here> universe trend, I mean. He might prefer total control of his own film and, if desired, universe?
You're always this abrasive on here, aren't you? Not sure that analogy tracks. There's more entertainment to consume than ever before--more shows, more films, more podcasts, more unboxing videos, more content than there's ever been in human history. I doubt many people are losing sleep over what a few actors do. The audience can watch something else. Actors themselves have more work options than ever before. Actors probably also like the job security of a serial role in something like the MCU. When they don't, they can move on and the part can be recast. So I find your point absurd and insincere. I guess there was something more dangerous and electric about Tarantino's early style--it was new and was before the studios started aping his edgy style. The monologuing before bursts of graphic violence has always been his schtick. It's become less interesting over time. It’s also become much more arch and forced in QT’s recent output. Indeed--to QT and Scorsese and Coppola, the MCU likely smacks of the studio system of the 50's and 60's that cranked out endless westerns and musicals, the system the New Hollywood gang rebelled against. Spielberg predicted people would get tired of comic book fare over ten years ago. It still hasn't come to pass. As far as the Hollywood star thing--I think this is more antiquated thinking. Who are the celebrities of the younger generation? It isn't particularly film stars. It's YouTubers and influencers that most of us have likely never heard of. But you also have Zendaya starring in the Spider-Man films, who herself has millions upon millions of social media followers which likely helps sell lots of tickets.
In each case they did have scripts. They were undergoing rewriting and had not been finalized yet. Nevertheless, they still needed to move forward with pre-production because of the timeline. One of the most foolish things fudios do is set a release date without a final script in place. It compromises the material. It’s like trying to built a building without a finished blue print.
Point taken, but Hollywood types and people in show biz almost NEVER say what they actually think or feel. That's what makes them decent actors and storytellers of made up crap. So excuse me for extrapolating in a way you didn't like, but it's purely about making sense of QT's comments and whining.
I'd have to think that you understood the points he was making before I took offense to your completely nonsensical "extrapolation." Don't worry, though--your cookie-cutter themes and superheroes aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
I don’t think it’s contrived and I think it’s a good film. You’re misconstruing what I said. My favorite rock and roll record is Exile on Main Street. It isn’t the least bit contrived. It’s highly organic and not very original. These aren’t either or propositions.
