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

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Oct 5, 2019.

  1. GregM

    GregM Ready to cross that fine line

    Location:
    Daddyland, CA
    Bob Iger didn't wake up one morning and decide to make a lot of Marvel movies. Like Scorsese's ideas, Marvel started out small and creatively (by an immigrant's son in New York). The appeal of the themes and characters are the relevant issues. All movies that earn studio support need to be properly sketched out and pitched. The movies that made their way into the Marvel franchise had to play by the same rules as anything else. If Irishman couldn't win major studio support, that's not MCU's fault.

    Frankly, most of Scorsese's recent films were greenlit because he pitched DiCaprio as the lead to the studios and they banked on him as a teen heartthrob. Otherwise those movies would have been in Netflix's scrap pile too.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2019
  2. This Heat

    This Heat Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Nope. He had a big hit with The Wolf of Wall Street so he had some pet projects green-lit.

    Um and no Marvel doesn't need to pitch its own intellectual property. Those aren't independent productions. That is a baffling understanding of how movies are made.
     
    Bluesman Mark likes this.
  3. GregM

    GregM Ready to cross that fine line

    Location:
    Daddyland, CA
    Nope what? Nope it wasn't about Dicaprio? Wolf of Wall St. I never heard of that. Who starred in it again? ;)

    Not as baffling as the idea that they're churned out like identical big mac burgers. There are a lot of creative choices that go into those movies, and those choices need to be greenlit same as with any studio production. And they are indeed sourced to Marvel's roots as a small publishing business by the son of Lithuanian immigrants.
     
    Chris DeVoe likes this.
  4. This Heat

    This Heat Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago, IL

    DiCaprio wasn't in "The Silence." Isnt' it "The Irishman"

    You don't seem to understand what greenlit means. It refers to when you have secured your budget and your film is authorized into production. Unless you are making a franchise film, the greenlight process will take years and years.

    In terms of the creative choices involved in a movie, in an independent production like "The Irishman" that rests with the director working with the executive producers who helped secure the money. It's much different in something like the Star Wars franchise. There is a reason why directors are routinely fired. Kathleen Kennedy is the President of Lucas Films. She is in charge.
     
  5. GregM

    GregM Ready to cross that fine line

    Location:
    Daddyland, CA
    Well, the stories used in Marvel movies were written decades ago, so it supports my point that no one woke up one morning and decided to greenlight these. It had to play by the same rules as anything else and was indeed years and years before it achieved studio support on the level we see today.

    Ok. The fact remains that Scorsese has sour grapes because he couldn't win studio support for yet another mafia epic starring the same actors who have appeared in numerous mafia epics (for decades). This time, the actors are digitally facelifted. And you respect this as a creative, independent choice? It seems more formulaic than a lot of MCU's films, frankly. And just so you know where I'm coming from, New York mob movies are my favorite genre. I wish Irishman did win major studio support, but it didn't and whining about MCU seems a spectacularly poor way to lament that.
     
    Chris DeVoe likes this.
  6. This Heat

    This Heat Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago, IL

    I am going to find a physics professor and argue with them about how I, as a film professor, certainly know more about physics then them. No doubt they know more about how movies are developed and financed than I.

    Again, Marvel owns its IP. It just needs to hire the creatives (director, screenwriter, etc). So quite literally they wake up one morning and decide what to make. Um, this is why they are able to map out their film releases many years in advance. This is not how it works for everything else.

    And again the development history of "The Irishman" was already posted. It's been in development for 15 years, initiated by Robert De Niro. (Um, in 15 years Marvel can make 50 sequels). He was always going to star in it. After the success of "The Wolf of Wall Street," financing offers started happening for "The Irishman." At one point Paramount with a foreign company attached offered up a 100million for it. This deal fell through and Netflix came in with more money because they are burning cash.
     
  7. GregM

    GregM Ready to cross that fine line

    Location:
    Daddyland, CA
    I don't see what your quip about professors or the issue of IP has to do with the discussion. I think we're on the same page but just heading into semantic debate about what "in development for 15 years" means regarding The Irishman and what half a century of comic books achieving pop culture status means regarding MCU. There may appear to be a clear point where development ends and funding begins, but even after production starts a studio can pull its support. I don't wish to debate this and I'm more than willing to acknowledge you as the expert if that makes you happy. The bottom line is that Disney correctly identified the Marvel films as an important franchise to fund, and that The Irishman had trouble finding major studio support. This made for Scorsese's sour grapes, which was my original statement. You could have simply agreed with me and avoided this entire irrelevant discussion.
     
    Chris DeVoe likes this.
  8. This Heat

    This Heat Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I don't agree he has sour grapes though
     
  9. GregM

    GregM Ready to cross that fine line

    Location:
    Daddyland, CA
    Of course he does. You think the timing and target of his comments are pure coincidence? Endgame had the biggest opening of any film in history and broke even after just five days in the theater. You think Scorsese is happy that Irishman has such a limited theatrical run? I don't know where (if anywhere) it's playing near me and I live in a major metropolitan area and consider myself a huge Scorsese fan. I'd certainly have sour grapes if I were him (but I'd know better than to air it to the press), and MCU was the most obvious target to lash out at.
     
    Vidiot and Chris DeVoe like this.
  10. Spencer R

    Spencer R Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pontotoc, MS
    Scorsese’s original comparison of the Marvel movies to theme park rides was condescending, both to the people who make the Marvel movies and to the millions of people who enjoy them. Making any aesthetic judgment that X is better than Y necessarily takes for granted that you know better than the people who mistakenly like Y. In Scorsese’s mind, he’s the rightful Defender of Cinema, and it’s only natural that his opinions ought to be deferred to. In my mind, Scorsese is a formulaic genre filmmaker who hasn’t had a new idea since the 70s, and, even if his critique of the Marvel films is partially accurate, his critique equally reflects his petulance that time has passed him by, and that he and his idea of good cinema have been marginalized to the point that he has to beg for money from the home of not-cinema, Netflix, to underwrite his latest wiseguy epic. I have my own reservations about the Marvel films, but give me Ant-Man over The Irishman.
     
  11. Ron Stone

    Ron Stone Offending Member

    Location:
    Deep Maryland
    I don't think Scorsese intended the statement to become the prominent hot take it's been. Like Brie Larson's aside about the demographics of movie critics while promoting CAPTAIN MARVEL, it was excerpted from an interview encompassing a larger discussion and became an Internet sensation because an easily offended audience seized on it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2019
    Graham and NaturalD like this.
  12. Graham

    Graham Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Not even worth debating with.
     
    bopdd likes this.
  13. That's how it started. Then he doubled down on it, still drumming up publicity for his film, which is fine. Then Coppola came along with a worse take and here we are.
     
  14. Chris DeVoe

    Chris DeVoe Forum Resident

    At least Coppola has his winery to process his sour grapes.
     
    Old Mac, BeatleJWOL and GregM like this.
  15. SPikor82

    SPikor82 Well-Known Member

    Location:
    IA
    I'm not a fan of the MCU myself, Ive seen some of them but they aren't anything amazing to me. The CGI overkill really doesn't interest me and everything feels safe. Ill take Robert Downey Jr in Less Than Zero/Johnny Be Good any day over the Avengers fluff.
     
  16. GregM

    GregM Ready to cross that fine line

    Location:
    Daddyland, CA
    I agree that Scorsese is not a formulaic genre filmmaker, but why is it ok to have a negative opinion of all the effort, creativity and talent that goes into the MCU films, but not ok to have a negative opinion of Scorsese? As I said, Scorsese put himself on a slippery slope that invites criticism. If it's ok for you to rail against MCU, it's ok for someone not a fan of Scorsese to speak their mind.
     
  17. the pope ondine

    the pope ondine Forum Resident

    gee I wonder how those women got those accolades when they apparently never speak in his films, pretty amazing

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Graham

    Graham Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
    I haven't once 'railed against' MCU as I don't watch them. I do agree with the thrust of Scorsese's argument about massive budget popcorn flicks. I disagree with his assertion that they aren't cinema though.

    And Scorsese said Marvel films are technically very well made and praised the actors for doing the best they can. Did you read what he said?
     
  19. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    And let's not forget that Black Panther was nominated for 6 Oscars (including Best Picture), which is not exactly chopped liver. It seems to me if the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences nominates a film six times, if that isn't Cinema, I dunno what is.

    Now, that's funny. Chris wins the internet today!
     
    ampmods and Chris DeVoe like this.
  20. Chris DeVoe

    Chris DeVoe Forum Resident

    Last edited: Nov 7, 2019
    budwhite and Knox Harrington like this.
  21. Hexwood

    Hexwood Forum Resident

    Location:
    UK
    That's over-egging the pudding a little bit.

    He's pissed off some Marvel fanboys, that's it, it's not like he's a Nazi sympathiser. He's a 76-year-old director who has just made one of the most acclaimed films of his fifty-year career. I'm sure he'll survive this insignificant bump in the road.
     
    NettleBed, Graham and the pope ondine like this.
  22. Knox Harrington

    Knox Harrington Well-Known Member

    So, just to summarize for new readers who may be confused: the posters to this thread are now all in agreement that Martin Scorsese is indeed correct: Marvel superhero films are not cinema!

    As is characteristic of the internet, this conclusion was reached after much reasoned argument, profound self-reflection and rumination with pipe by the fireplace.
     
  23.  
    Knox Harrington likes this.
  24. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR! Thread Starter

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Jesus, Emmerich has made some horrendously-bad movies... Independence Day: Resurgence, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, the 1998 Godzilla remake... I mean, these are jaw-droppingly bad movies.

    He is trying to redeem himself with the new Midway film, and I hope it's a good movie that does well (mainly because I know people who worked on it).
     
    Ahab, GregM and Chris DeVoe like this.
  25. Knox Harrington

    Knox Harrington Well-Known Member

    That is hilarious.
     
    GregM and Vidiot like this.

Share This Page