Martin Scorsese Compares Marvel Superhero Films to "Theme Park Rides"

Who can keep track of all the names of these things? It's like reality television. Completely expendable.

 

A better explanation is that some people prefer Blade over a movie like Titanic because they want to see violent struggles of good vs. wicked. The same reason why some people want to see best picture winning Bridge on River Kwai and Braveheart.

 

Note that I don't think any of these were technically Marvel films: they were done by other studios and licensed by Marvel... which is not exactly the same thing. Kick-Ass (as an example) was Lionsgate/Universal. Logan was Fox when it was still Fox, before it got "absorbed" by Marvel. There are always the "In Association with Marvel Productions" distinctions where Marvel has a little more say in script and casting, and I'd point to the recent Spiderman films as an example. (But very much not R.) I agree it's confusing as to what is really a Marvel Marvel film vs. Some Other Studio's Marvel film.

Venom should have been R-rated, but Sony pressured the director to tone it down. I dunno if the R-rated version ever saw the light of day, but that one really pushed the limit on what you could get away with in PG-13 violence.

It is true that the Netflix TV shows -- which, rated "MA" -- are essentially the same as an R rating, and those are very much part-owned and controlled by Marvel TV. So I'd say Daredevil, Punisher, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, and Defenders are as violent and R-rated and graphic as you can get, though they're careful on the sexual content. There's some stuff in all those shows that really made me wince, particularly one scene in Daredevil where Kingpin slammed a former employee's head in a car door about 25 times. I mean, jesus, after 3 or 4 times, I think it's all over with, but it went on for what felt like 30 seconds. And Punisher is so violent, I'd keep any kid far, far, far away from watching that... maybe all kids under 29 or something.

James Gunn is well-liked in the industry and known as a good guy (offensive tweets notwithstanding). I think his observations are interesting, and I'd also say he's never claimed his films are lofty, intellectual, artistic pursuits. I'd ask Scorsese if he thought Spielberg's The BFG or Ready Player One qualify as "real cinema" or not. Hell, the Jurassic Park films are pretty junky, when you get down to it. But there is a difference between good junk and bad junk.

 

Has he apologized yet? I can’t sleep.

 

Oh, I know what the Bechdel test is - I just don't know "Age of Innocence" well enough to know if it passes!

 

"Elite" does not equal "elitist". An elite athlete doesn't have be an elitist.

And the uniform dismissal of dozens of movies as basic thrill ride entertainment is damned smug.

"Calling out these comic book movies for what they are" falls right into that category as well...

 

Ya lost me there...

 

Nothing at all - they're great!

But it's the dismissive tone of comic book movies as nothing but "theme park rides", without the merit of serious cinema, that's the issue...

 

Since Paul Newman has been mentioned a few times: for what it's worth, his final movie Road to Perdition was technically a comic book movie.

 

Here's a good place to start: ask yourself who cares more about turning a profit with each film.

 

So making money is "elitist"?

You're going with a definition of "elitist" that doesn't match any with which I'm familiar.

McDonald's cranks out burgers to rake in the $$$ - does that make them an elitist restaurant chain?

 

I was actually editing my reply, so I'll put the follow-up question here: who's more concerned about dominating the film industry or killing off the competition?

The trick that McDonald's pulls off is the same one that Marvel pulls off: pandering to the widest possible demographic in order to make the most possible profit while eliminating as much of the competition as possible. Confusing McDonald's cheeseburgers with the McDonald's board of directors is the exact thing that the people running the show would want you to do.

Ultimately, Scorsese isn't saying what should and should be in theaters. Instead, he's upholding the "elitist" perspective that "cinema" should be an art form of relatively undiluted expression, which grapples with real psychological and emotional themes without overly pandering to its audience or resorting to pure spectacle (bear in mind I'm not saying Marvel does this).

By contrast, Marvel meticulously crafts its product so as to appease as broad a demographic as possible, completely shifting the entire film industry in the process. Scorsese might be elitist in his opinion of what does or does not make for serious cinema, but Marvel Studios is elitist in everything but its opinion, which is purposefully broad and safe so as to prop up and sustain a much more tangible elitist system (by default).

 

Bill Maher's little jab at this was funny last night.

 

I say again: you use a definition of "elitist" unfamiliar to me. Appealing to the masses is the opposite of "elitist"!

 

Link? Or at least explanation what the jab was?

 

"When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

 

Looking around for it on YouTube...
don' see it anywhere, so...
it was something along the lines of:
"these comic-book movie are just the same movie over and over agin...
whereas Martin's new movie is a gangster movie starring Joe Pesci and Robert DeNero!"

 

What's more "elitist" to you: when Martin Scorsese makes some offhand comment about what qualifies for "serious cinema," or when Disney Studios refuses to show "Star Wars" at Arclight Theaters unless the chain bumps Tarantino's "The Hateful Eight" out of the CineramaDome?

The content is for everyone. The marketplace is for a select few. It's not exactly astrophysics.

 

You really see this as an antitrust issue? Consider that Marvel rose out of the company founded by Mo Goodman, eldest son of Lithuanian immigrants, who lived in hobo camps during the great depression. The rise of Marvel is a uniquely American story. A couple of guys pumping out comic books in the 60s that more and more people start reading. The comic book characters achieved pop culture status and adaptations for the screen, marketed in increasingly sophisticated ways, culminating in this movie franchise. It didn't happen overnight and it isn't comparable to using fat and sugar to lure people into buying products.

There is no clear line. Explain how Scorsese's films don't pander and the Marvel films do. MCU takes chances--big chances. It was not a foregone conclusion that a movie about a walking tree, a brute, a green lady and an orphan who likes '70s music would be a box office hit. What audience was demanding such a thing? The films that I originally had zero interest in seeing won me over, as they won over millions of other fans. The game was not rigged, the winning was done fair and square.

 

Maher stuck a pin in Martin's balloon.

 

"Forget it Jake, it's bopddtown."

 

I doubt that Scorsese would care who produced a film based upon a comic book, as his tastes veer more toward other subject matter and types of protagonists rather than an individual studio's preferences.

Artistically, Blade adds some credence to the genre, though. Ebert gave it 3 of 4 stars.

 

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Cornering the marketplace and, furthermore, determining what does and doesn't pass for mainstream content is its own form of elitism. Comparing Marvel Studios to Marvel Comics already misses the point.

No one is talking about risk management the way you think they are. It has far more to do with adhering to formula and exhibiting freedom of personal expression. I'll let you and Mr. Bechdel Test figure the rest out on your own.

 

Which is damned correct!

Marty has certainly branched out over the years, so he's not one-note, but he does go back to the well every so often!

 

One more time: attempts at market domination aren't "elitist". Might be cut-throat, but not "elitist".

"CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY" isn't remotely the same as Marty peering over his monocle to pooh-pooh comic book movies...