|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Oct 20, 2019 3:15:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Oct 20, 2019 5:50:43 GMT
So I guess Netflix is his only solution if he wants to do Megalopolis...
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Oct 21, 2019 6:13:34 GMT
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Oct 21, 2019 6:27:06 GMT
LOL, I think that's going overboard. It's just popcorn entertainment, how can it be "despicable"?
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Oct 21, 2019 6:34:53 GMT
He’s entitled to his beliefs, but Francis... Your daughter’s a better filmmaker than you.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Oct 21, 2019 6:42:45 GMT
Totally agree with the guy. No real reason for film makers like Marty and Coppola to bash these films actually.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Oct 21, 2019 7:06:50 GMT
No real reason for film makers like Marty and Coppola to bash these films actually. Scorsese didn't bash comic book movies. He just said he wouldn't make them because: 1. He doesn't know how to do them. 2. It's uninteresting (to him). 3. They're more like theme park rides. 4. They're not cinema. That's hardly bashing them. He just responded to a question about whether he'd make comic book movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2019 7:27:48 GMT
Yeah James, the MCU is definitely comparable to Ford, Peckinpah, and Leone. Good call, dude. You’re also definitely not missing the point of why Scorsese and Coppola said what they did.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Oct 21, 2019 8:28:44 GMT
No real reason for film makers like Marty and Coppola to bash these films actually. Scorsese didn't bash comic book movies. He just said he wouldn't make them because: 1. He doesn't know how to do them. 2. It's uninteresting (to him). 3. They're more like theme park rides. 4. They're not cinema. That's hardly bashing them. He just responded to a question about whether he'd make comic book movies. Saying it's not cinema is a kind of bashing. The real trouble for him, I guess, is that the studios don't care anymore in making films like the ones he wants to do. They only care in making comic book movies for the easy profit. Which is a real thing.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 21, 2019 9:45:55 GMT
This is just getting sad now. Colin Hanks (random, I know ) put out a tweet that really summed things up, imho: I don't think Scorsese or Copplola are covering themselves with glory with this type of "old man yells at cloud" behavior. But it's just a reminder that people are human at the end of the day. There is a hell of a lot of envy in Hollywood towards what Kevin Feige and Marvel have achieved, and how beloved that franchise is. Even James Cameron, who himself makes the kind of "theme park" movies Scorsese derided Marvel as, was giving interviews last year praying for Avengers Fatigue. It's nuts that a studio that produces max 2-3 films a year that the public loves and gain consistently strong reviews have so much of the "old guard" of Hollywood in their feelings like this. And to be honest, if there were nothing but Superhero films out there, I'd shoot myself and probably agree with these geezers. But we are living in the golden age of content. There is literally films made now for every possible interest group. I also wonder if a lot of these older directors are incensed at the way Fiege has made eroded the power base of directors, by successfully making Marvel a Producer led entity, David O Selznick style. It was all fine when only Cameron, Lucas, Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Robert Zemeckis and a handful of directors could make these "theme park" movies that both critics and the public enjoyed. They still upheld the credo of the director as king. But when Fiege can literally pluck C-list filmmakers from the fringes (like Scott Derrickson, James Gunn and The Russo Brothers) and turn them into superstar blockbuster directors at will, it kind of dilutes the value of the director. Makes it seem like anyone can get to that level, if they have a great producer behind them.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Oct 21, 2019 10:16:31 GMT
If Netflix really wants to campaign hard for the Irishman to win BP, maybe Marty should stop saying such things...
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 21, 2019 11:10:45 GMT
James Gunn comparing Scorsese and Coppola to any ole grandpa is simply stupid. I understand that he envisions himself as some kind of auteur and gets a personal blow each time those established masters take a shot at MCU flicks but his thing about 'Old guys being old' is disingenuous. He knows they're saying this not just because they're like his great uncle.
It's pretty clear why they feel this way. Both Scorsese and Coppola come from the 70s which was an incredible time in American cinema when directors' visions were not only supported by the industry but also demanded by the public. All of that has changed pretty drastically in the 80s but then seemed to somewhat resolve itself in the 90s and 00s, before eventually dying once again closer to the 2010s when superhero flicks and remakes began dominating the financial side of the Hollywood industry. I can't really blame the studios for taking fewer and fewer risks because they obviously don't want to lose money. And the audiences is what makes them their money. And the audiences, especially younger ones, really don't seem to give a flying fuck about masters like Scorsese and Coppola. People who cream themselves over the internet when a new superhero flick releases a first look, dudes who write shit like 'MY OVARIES WON'T BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS' upon seeing a photo of Timothée Chalamet, etc. The former dominate the box office, the latter dominate the internet spaces and the two often coincide. There's of course an audience that supports great filmmakers too but it's a fraction of those who want a 'theme park ride'. So I wouldn't even really blame the studios for not giving money to Coppola or Scorsese for their ambitious, potentially amazing films. I'd blame the audiences who seem to have simply lost the notion of cinema culture. And the studios are of course to blame for abandoning their desire to make artistically vital films.
And again, I truly believe that the difference between Coppola/Scorsese and James Gunn's grandpa when it comes to these movies is the notion of cinematic language. Of course Coppola/Scorsese won't be saying the same stuff about their peers like Cameron, Lucas or Spielberg when they make blockbusters but I genuinely believe that it's like this because they're able to recognize that those films are made BY their directors with cinematic choices that are what entertainment movies should all be about. This is why Scorsese loves those B-movies so much - the cinematic language, the directorial choices, the inventiveness of their vision (things which were dismissed when those movies got released). So of course they feel differently about MCU where there is no vision, where the filmmaking seems to be done by a robot, where a lot of the movies blend together because nothing makes them stand apart. I personally don't hate the MCU stuff and don't agree with everything they're saying in their comments but it's pretty easy for me to see why they feel this way.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 21, 2019 11:26:45 GMT
So of course they feel differently about MCU where there is no vision, where the filmmaking seems to be done by a robot, where a lot of the movies blend together because nothing makes them stand apart. I personally don't hate the MCU stuff and don't agree with everything they're saying in their comments but it's pretty easy for me to see why they feel this way. I really disagree with this. Yes, there are some fairly by commitee Marvel Films that seem lacking in a strong authorial voice ( Captain Marvel, Thor: The Dark World etc), but Marvel is pretty good now at allowing strong directors their own authorship. Thor: Ragnorok is clearly a Taika Watiti film, and I don't believe it could have been made by anyone else. It's all his tonal sensibility. Black Panther had so many things relevant to what Ryan Coogler is as a filmmaker (including his social concerns and use of Oakland as a key location), that it could only have been made in the form that resonated so strongly by him. Guardians Of The Galaxy, right down to the humour and music choices, is an extension of James Gunn's personality and interests. It's not really a fair criticism.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Oct 21, 2019 11:30:52 GMT
I'm with Scorsese here. The Marvel and DC films may be fun for people. I get that. But for me, I can't feel anything for these adults running around in silly costumes with a serious face. I just can't. I'm sorry. Even when they show the character's backstory, I feel no connection. None. Jodie Foster actually said the same thing Scorsese just did about it being like going to a theme park, seeing these movies. It enrages many Marvel fans to read that, but I personally can't disagree. I'm just glad we won't see a Scorsese super hero film. That's fine but it doesn't make not cinema. Just cinema you don't like. It's Scorsese being pretentious.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 21, 2019 11:53:38 GMT
I personally don't hate the MCU stuff and don't agree with everything they're saying in their comments but it's pretty easy for me to see why they feel this way. ^ This. I do this all the time - I can (and have) written a lot on how say The Replacements and Guns N Roses were the "last" Rock bands. Not that they were artistic equals but the last of a specific type........there are plenty of Rock bands before and after, but the statement "means" more when you phrase it that way. If you want that you have to look somewhere off the cultural grid now - to a less prevalent band maybe........or a writer........or painter.......or piece of graffiti. No one freaks out about my saying that because the point is clear and so are Scorsese's/Coppola's points - they're cinema technically, but also not at the same time. Coppola's statement is actually more obvious - he used to say all the time, when he pitched an "original" film idea to studio heads they'd say "Um, what movie will this be like again?" This is just like that.......now taken to a "despicable" extreme because in his opinion the creators are acting like the studios themselves. It's a perfectly logical statement and it's perfectly fine to say one of these things are not like the other just because they use some of the same tools and are projected in some of the same places. Shrug.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 21, 2019 12:00:57 GMT
If Netflix really wants to campaign hard for the Irishman to win BP, maybe Marty should stop saying such things... NOT AT ALL, OLD PEOPLE ARE MAJORITY OF THE ACADEMY VOTERS
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 21, 2019 12:06:27 GMT
James Gunn comparing Scorsese and Coppola to any ole grandpa is simply stupid. I understand that he envisions himself as some kind of auteur and gets a personal blow each time those established masters take a shot at MCU flicks but his thing about 'Old guys being old' is disingenuous. He knows they're saying this not just because they're like his great uncle. It's pretty clear why they feel this way. Both Scorsese and Coppola come from the 70s which was an incredible time in American cinema when directors' visions were not only supported by the industry but also demanded by the public. All of that has changed pretty drastically in the 80s but then seemed to somewhat resolve itself in the 90s and 00s, before eventually dying once again closer to the 2010s when superhero flicks and remakes began dominating the financial side of the Hollywood industry. I can't really blame the studios for taking fewer and fewer risks because they obviously don't want to lose money. And the audiences is what makes them their money. And the audiences, especially younger ones, really don't seem to give a flying fuck about masters like Scorsese and Coppola. People who cream themselves over the internet when a new superhero flick releases a first look, dudes who write shit like 'MY OVARIES WON'T BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS' upon seeing a photo of Timothée Chalamet, etc. The former dominate the box office, the latter dominate the internet spaces and the two often coincide. There's of course an audience that supports great filmmakers too but it's a fraction of those who want a 'theme park ride'. So I wouldn't even really blame the studios for not giving money to Coppola or Scorsese for their ambitious, potentially amazing films. I'd blame the audiences who seem to have simply lost the notion of cinema culture. And the studios are of course to blame for abandoning their desire to make artistically vital films. And again, I truly believe that the difference between Coppola/Scorsese and James Gunn's grandpa when it comes to these movies is the notion of cinematic language. Of course Coppola/Scorsese won't be saying the same stuff about their peers like Cameron, Lucas or Spielberg when they make blockbusters but I genuinely believe that it's like this because they're able to recognize that those films are made BY their directors with cinematic choices that are what entertainment movies should all be about. This is why Scorsese loves those B-movies so much - the cinematic language, the directorial choices, the inventiveness of their vision (things which were dismissed when those movies got released). So of course they feel differently about MCU where there is no vision, where the filmmaking seems to be done by a robot, where a lot of the movies blend together because nothing makes them stand apart. I personally don't hate the MCU stuff and don't agree with everything they're saying in their comments but it's pretty easy for me to see why they feel this way. cOPPOLA IN his youth made porn for entretain the masses, he don't consider them cinema, just was a rollercoaster 4 people who enjoy themselves.- For Coppola Supeheroes movies are the new porn, and he is right.- James Gunn is a stupid nerd with money and fans that think he is a kind of God, until someone else appear, or Nolan,Tarantino and Fincher made a new movie.-
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,620
|
Post by Javi on Oct 21, 2019 13:58:31 GMT
Imo the truly baffling thing about the Marvel movies is how fcking ugly they are. You would think with that kind of money you could at least avoid being a complete eyesore but no.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Oct 21, 2019 14:25:58 GMT
Funniest part about Gunn's message is that he included a picture of a raccoon talking to a fucking tree to go along with it.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 21, 2019 14:34:12 GMT
The issue is not Marvel, it's the deteriorating relationship between studios and exhibitors, specifically the latter losing much of their financial power because of the blockbuster release format. Studios make the vast majority of ticket returns from the first few weeks and structure their marketing to focus squarely on the release date, so exhibitors have to both rely on concessions that invariably get overpriced and marked-up tickets. Now with the digital revolution offering a number of streaming platforms, audiences are flocking to the better deal and leaving the theatrical experience for special occasions, which are pretty much just Disney at this point since the studio in and of itself is a highly marketable brand and a conglomerate of franchises. There's still some demand for going to the movies at a good value as demonstrated by MoviePass being the fastest growing subscription service ever at one point. The economics just need to fall into place and that requires either innovation on behalf of the exhibitors (possible), a MoviePass-like third-party with a more sustainable model (plenty are trying), or the studios relenting some of their power (hahahaha).
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 21, 2019 22:09:22 GMT
So of course they feel differently about MCU where there is no vision, where the filmmaking seems to be done by a robot, where a lot of the movies blend together because nothing makes them stand apart. I personally don't hate the MCU stuff and don't agree with everything they're saying in their comments but it's pretty easy for me to see why they feel this way. I really disagree with this. Yes, there are some fairly by commitee Marvel Films that seem lacking in a strong authorial voice ( Captain Marvel, Thor: The Dark World etc), but Marvel is pretty good now at allowing strong directors their own authorship. Thor: Ragnorok is clearly a Taika Watiti film, and I don't believe it could have been made by anyone else. It's all his tonal sensibility. Black Panther had so many things relevant to what Ryan Coogler is as a filmmaker (including his social concerns and use of Oakland as a key location), that it could only have been made in the form that resonated so strongly by him. Guardians Of The Galaxy, right down to the humour and music choices, is an extension of James Gunn's personality and interests. It's not really a fair criticism. I'm not saying that literally every MCU film doesn't have a personality, I'm saying that the vast majority of them don't. You brought up three movies out of 23 so...I don't see it as a ratio that would render this criticism unfair. And even as far as your examples go...I'll definitely give you Waititi whose sense of humor and visual choices make "Ragnarok" stand out (it's my second favorite MCU film in large part due to that). But even with that, these are films that are made and thought through by committe first and only then a smidge of directors are allowed to put SOME personal imprint into them. And for me that imprint is really not that significant. Yeah, "Black Panther" has some social content and "Guardians" has some quirky comedy. But I don't feel that these movies in their released form are something that could ONLY have been made by their directors. Personal cinema is more than that - the filmmaking choices for me are as important as themes or tones directors gravitate towards. And I feel that on that front "Black Panther" and "Guardians" do not stand out at all. They work fine. I just don't see those directorial achievements as singularly interesting, I don't see many interesting fingerprints in those movies. And it's fine that some people do. That's a personal thing, as is everything related to movies really.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Oct 21, 2019 23:38:40 GMT
Why are we getting worked up about Coppola calling the MCU despicable? Where’s the lie?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Oct 22, 2019 3:09:25 GMT
You have to admit the reboots are insane. Did we really need another Spiderman trilogy? Granted the Garfield movies were horrible and I couldn't even watch them but still a reboot of a reboot? YAWN!!!!
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Oct 22, 2019 3:25:09 GMT
I suppose Gunn is technically not wrong in that I think there are a handful of movies that fall under the "superhero movie" banner that are solid. But they are overwhelmingly quite bad. And 90% of them are pretty much the same movie. Not comparable to westerns, science fiction, or gangster movies where you have so many different variations that it's hard to make broad statements about the quality of those genres.
|
|
anita
New Member
Posts: 19
Likes: 4
|
Post by anita on Oct 22, 2019 13:08:17 GMT
Truth hurts. That's all.
|
|