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

Just FYI, on my comics interest, this is in my book collection & I read it often; the Werewolf By Night Omnibus:

 

I haven't watched any Marvel movie!

 

A lot of "older" adults are way into them too, and I'm pretty sure Scorsese' comments are in the context of how seriously superhero films are taken, with Joker taking a festival prize, for example.

 

The first film my wife and I watched together was The Elephant Man, and we were both in tears at the end of the film. She credits that moment as when she knew were were meant for each other.

Absolutely! Jackie Earl Haley deserved a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his work on that film.

It's nonsense. I keep seeing that claim, and it is nonsense. Yes, they are making a ton of money, but no, they are not coming out every week. Instead, there are still plenty of other films, although most of them play for a week and then disappear.

Here's what is playing at the theater my wife and I go to the most frequently, the AMC River East 21:

1. Joker
   
2. Abominable
   
3. Downton Abbey
   
4. Hustlers
   
5. Rambo: Last Blood
   
6. Ad Astra
   
7. IT Chapter Two
   
8. Judy
   
9. The Lion King
   
10. War
    
11. Sye Raa Narasimha Reddy
    
12. Brittany Runs a Marathon
    
13. Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
    
14. The Climbers
    
15. Lucy in the Sky
    
16. Official Secrets
    
17. My People, My Country
    
18. Promare

18 different films, the only one arguably a "comic book" or Superhero film is #1, and witness the discussion, it barely qualifies. A couple of genre films (#5 #7), a couple of animated film (#2 #18), a live action film based on an animated film (#9) and because Chicago is such a diverse city a couple of Indian films (#10 #11) and a couple of Chinese films (#14 #17). The others are a comedy (#12) and the rest dramas and biographies.

Not one MCU or DC film is in the theater.

(I get the feeling that people hate when I insist on inserting actual facts into a discussion, but I just can't help myself.)

 

Of course there are..I am one of them. However when a super hero movie comes out it’s not like they are going after the 35-50 demo. If they get it great but that’s not the audience that will make or break the film. In terms of Joker I don’t consider it in any way a super hero movie.

 

Not all “older” adults.

 

He's absolutely right. Those films make me feel dizzy and stupid... not a good result.

 

Well, congrats to you. I would think my defense of Scorsese made it clear that I don't like them either.

 

Sorry. Misinterpreted your response.

 

And I'm sorry too. Overreacted at the thought someone would believe I was sticking up for "adult" superhero fans.

 

I am a enormous fan of Scorsese, too. From Mean Streets and Who's That Knocking at My Door to Kundun, Casino and Hugo. I don't particularly like the films he did with De Caprio during which time I did enjoy Iron Man and several other MCU films. One can be a serious fan of cinema and still enjoy a variety of genres and styles, whether directed by Scorsese or the many talented filmmakers involved in MCU.

Nolan's films over the past 20 years have been excellent, and I think the Dark Knight trilogy was too, while not rising to the level of Prestige, Interstellar, Inception or Dunkirk. The Dark Knight films do not rise to the level of some of the best MCU films, either. DC universe takes a darker, more serious tone than MCU, and I don't think that serves DC well. Nolan made it work, but that was by conforming bat man to "the Nolans' formula," where there is a minor's welfare/love at stake, a symbol that can be used to defy or define reality, identity/morality shift and the like. MCU can also tackle dark issues of our day, such as AI, in ways that go deeper than the surface I think, and deeper than anything tackled in the Dark Knight trilogy.

Fair enough, but by the same token the first two Raimi Spiderman movies look/feel badly dated and unidimensional compared to most of the MCU movies made subsequently. Frankly, the 3rd Spiderman took chances to explore the destructive nature of jealousy and revenge, and I admire MCU for tackling the risks. Some work. Some don't. But that to me is far more interesting than a formulaic, safe feature, regardless of genre.

The entire industry takes itself too seriously and is an excercise in unreality. That's why MCU seems fresh to me. No matter how deep or artistic a movie may be, it's all ultimately water cooler fodder. And frankly it's more legit to tackle a comic book or two in a screenplay than a book like Wharton's Age of Innocence. In the words of the Coen's Barton Fink a core tenet of modern film is "the creation of a new living theater of and about and for the common man." MCU is a perfectly legit attempt at that by showing the humanity of superheroes in ways that most of us can relate to.

Now you're criticizing Pixar? You can watch a film like Inside Out as an allegory for textbook cognitive psychology. A lot of thought goes into those films, and it is no small feat to make a film work for young kids and adults simultaneously.

You may be in for a treat if you ever decide to indulge in some of them.

Hundreds of millions of people enjoy alcoholic beverages and other substances--and dare I say some types of music--to achieve that result. Why belittle it? And frankly, I never felt that way after any of the MCU films. But I have laughed and been entertained in new ways.

 

Oh, dear, someone came out and said fast food wasn't actually nourishing. Assemble the Twitter mobs, brandish the elitist accusations, and hold the high moral ground of imagined victimhood.

This reminds me of our occasional debates about the artistic merits or lack thereof concerning Corporate Rock. Forty years on, the fans of multi-platinum bands that can still be heard on Classic Rock radio, sports arenas and anywhere else beer and ED nostrums are advertised, remain the grudge-bearing victims of rock critic snobbery.

 

The Toy Story films were some of the deepest explorations of what it means to be human. In Toy Story 2, Woody has to choose between eternal life and being loved. In Toy Story 3, the whole bunch faces certain doom with bravery and grace.

 

Quoth Marty; “Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.”

Rebutteth I;



Game, set, and match to me .

We still love you Marty... The Irishman is going to rock... ROCK I tells ya!!!

 

Just because there are exceptions to every rule does not mean that my post needs to be turned into a straw man for you to make your point. I could do this as well but that’s not the point. Most of the superhero films I have seen are made for the excitement. Yes, there will be dark themes that our protagonist must overcome just like in any other film but that in itself is part of the ride.

The point of my post was to point out that not every film has to be thoughtful. Not every film needs to be deep. Some people just want a film to make them laugh, cry, or just keep them on the edge of their seat. Not every film needs to be thoughtful.

As far as which one someone prefers was not the point of my post so please, don’t make it a straw man for you to make your point.

 

On that problem, I can definitely agree with him. But this is spread across the whole industry and is not confined to just Marvel: I would point to Fast & Furious and Transformers as other action movie series that are mindless, very successful, and that the studios are making in lieu of "serious" films. (Note, BTW, that Scorsese had to involve multiple distributors and Netflix to get The Irishman made, which took ten years of deal-making to pull off.)

What Scorsese forgets is that there's always been crap, throwaway films, going back to the silent era. The problem now is that 80% of the movies coming out are blockbuster action, fantasy, comic books, and/or sci-fi., to the exclusion of everything else. It's crushing the "little" films -- the dramas, the romances, the historical biographies, the comedies, the mysteries -- we need to balance the palate. But I wouldn't say that Marvel is the culprit, since this issue goes across many studios and TV shows.

And in Toy Story 4, the studio tries desperately to squeeze more water from a stone!

 

What I criticized about Pixar was their increasing reliance on churning out sequels, (which in part ties in with the merchandising profits to me made from that), instead of seeking out new script & character ideas:

Inside Out obviously wasn't a sequel, so trying to parse any offering a critique of that film from the above comment is moot. It had nothing to do with the parameters of what I posted. I'm admittedly not Pixar's primary audience at age 58, but I have enjoyed several of their films, found some lacking & avoided many because the subject matter wasn't going to interest me, or it was a painfully obvious cash grab, (Cars 2 anyone?).

My wife is 38, & she was 14 when Toy Story came out, so she was much more into Pixar's films than myself. Even she found TS4 formulaic & tedious, & leaned over to me more than once when we went to see it, saying how bored she was. Others will of course differ, but the thing is, we have every right to find it boring & tedious, (if it indeed was to ud, & it was), & to say so, as others have to praise it. Personally, I don't care if I never see any computer animated films, but at the same time I don't mind great ones. The Pixar films we see are those that might appeal to us both, & the more sequels they churn out, the less & less likely that becomes. For both of us TS3 completed the storyline far, far better, & TS4, (other than Keanu Reeves as Duke CaBoom), just felt like both a rehash of the themes & ideas of TS2, & like they had gone to the well one time too often.

On Inside Out, we found it clever enough, & we fully grasped it's themes & allegories. But, we also felt that with that film at least, that in trying to wrap such themes, et al, into a concoction that would appeal to younger kids that their reach exceeded their grasp in that case. It would have been better aimed at older adolescents thematically, in part by removing the too obviously precious character of Bing Bong, or seriously limiting his role. Excellent ideas in the film, hampered by a kinda obvious execution.

Personally as far as their sequels go, I'd rather see a continuation of their Incredibles series, because at least with those they aren't hitting the audience over the head constantly with the allegories & themes they want to insert , but instead integrate them more smoothly into the background of the story, so the attempted emotional triggers aren't so glaring obvious as they seem to have become in Pixar's films of late. Up, WALL-E, Inside Out & TS4, seem too determined to shout, "See! We have multi-layered & deep plots with thematic substance & we want you to know it at every single moment!!"

 

While I think that Marty can dislike them all he wants, I disagree with him. If he had sit through, say, "Winter Soldier", he would have seen a thriller akin to "Three Days of the Condor" or "The Parallex View" using comic book motifs and with interesting, character development. Having said all of that, didn't Marty indicate he liked the "Star Wars" films? Those aren't any different.

I agree with Samuel L. Jackson's take and response. He can dislike them all he wants but there are others who dislike his films (I'm not among them). Seems to me cinema can be diverse enough to include films by Chuck Jones, Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Jean Luc Goddard and Marvel films. They remind ME of the studio films made in the 30's-50's except instead of musicals, noir (although noir has been integrated into the films), westerns, war films, mysteries, thrillers and Charlie Chan movies, they can be big enough for Marvel movies.

 

"meaning" can be in a variety of different films. They aren't created in a vacuum and do deal with character conflict, themes that concern the people that make them etc. This reminds me of the diss that used to be directed at comic books as having no meaning. One could argue that Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey" could be seen as "comic book" entertainment of its time. The same for Film Noir, Thrillers or other genres that were once looked down upon. The bottom line is this--the meaning of ANY art or entertainment is there whether or not one prefers it or sees it is something else entirely. It's all about how well the film is made and those that wrote, produced, directed and performance in the movie.

 

When expressing hyperbole, avoid numbers. Or say "80% of the money is being made with..." or something like that, because what you actually said is absolutely wrong.

I can agree with this. It was enjoyable enough, but I'd be content to never see it again.

 

For the record, this isn't a reaction necessarily about your post but on comments in general about the genre.

...but one could make this argument about ANY genre that dominates because everyone jumps on the bandwagon making films less than concerned about quality. I find it ironic that the very folks judging these films as lacking and "collapsing" under their own weight, haven't seen the majority of them or any of the MCU movies (The Raimi "Spider-Man" movies had little to do with the MCU because the creative direction was pushed by Sony). Do I think every movie should be a comic book movie? No. If you're going to judge the genre as a whole though, I would suggest actually watching more than 1 or two of the films to get a sense. Just as with everything, some films are better than others and the same is true of MCU films.

To your point, however, I do agree that OTHER types of films do need to be made. No one can subside on a diet only of steak, chips, candy or salad. Having said that, it's not going to appeal to everyone and it's as simple as that. Now one can pull apart and analyze if these films are worthwhile but I would argue it's on a case by case basis.

I can remember someone who used to dismiss Hitchcock's films and any in that genre as being "a waste of time". That may be true of some projects but others, not so much. I think the Russo brothers have made the best of these films (with the except of the first Iron Man movie and the Guardian of the Galaxy films).

It's all about quality and context.

 

Not. Gonna Happen. I'd rather drink bleach mixed with battery acid than ever suffer through another MCU, (or DC), movie. When I say they have less than zero interest to me, I mean that in every way possible. Perhaps it's the fact that Raimi's films had little to do with the endless & inane MCU that adds to their appeal for me.

For those that like them, more power to you. That doesn't mean I have to watch or care about them.

 

I get it. There are lots of films that don't appeal to me as well (and some of the MCU films I haven't liked). I just don't find the MCU to be inane now are they a 'franchise' yep. I'm not going to suggest that you should have to do either BUT to be fair, it would be helpful to know what you're talking about with the films themselves because, again, some are better than others and some resonante and some do not. It's like musicals--I don't like all musicals but the ones that are great I truly enjoy. I also don't consider them all inane because of overexposure (and one genre or another has dominated films or been very prominent at one time or another). Comic book based films are only as good as the thought brought into making the film itself.

My wife hates westerns and there were many westerns that were made that were crap and some great ones as well. That doesn't make them all crap nor inane. If it doesn't appeal to you that's fine but I find it difficult to believe that, without having experienced more than one or two, how they could possibly be "inane" or what qualities make them so. The only difference with the MCU is that there's the ambition of trying to put together a "universe" whereas before one film would be its own little "universe".

Just my two cents.

 

In my case, I've seen seven of the MCU films, (& I use "MCU" as a shorthand umbrella for any Marvel based film), the three Raimi films, the first two Iron Man films, & the two Ghost Rider films. As I said, I loved the first two Raimi Spidermans, enjoyed the third, though I felt they stuffed too much into it, Loved the first Iron Man, & was underwhelmed by the second, though it was entertaining enough. The GR films? The first was trashy fun, (& I was a fan of the character in the 70s comics), & the second was not only terrible, but a real letdown given how much I enjoyed Nelvedine/Taylor's Crank films. After Iron Man 2 & the second Ghost Rider fiasco, my interest level in wanting to keep up with all the characters, offshoots, tie ins, etc, etc, etc, dropped to nil, much like they did with the comics themselves I read in the 70s. I'm simply not the audience for these films & I have no problem with that. There are other films I find far more interesting & satisfying.