sirchuck23
Based
Bad news dawg...you don't mind if I have some of your 300 dollar a glass shit there would ya?
Posts: 2,724
Likes: 4,833
|
Post by sirchuck23 on Oct 22, 2019 13:55:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Oct 22, 2019 14:47:19 GMT
Loach derides Marvel movies for having the goal of making a lot of money for a corporation.
In other news, water is wet.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Oct 22, 2019 16:26:40 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. Yes, it technically is still "cinema", of course. I was more agreeing with his theme park comment. I think Scorsese just has very romantic notions of what cinema is to him. And I like that about him. That's what I took from his remarks.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Oct 22, 2019 16:33:43 GMT
I don't think Scorsese meant that in a literal way. It's like saying Disaster Movie isn't art. Technically, it is art. It's just not good art. When Scorsese says Marvel movies aren't cinema, he probably means they aren't good cinema. I'm pretty sure Scorsese knows Marvel movies are made and shown in theaters. Yes, that's what I got from it, too. Francis Ford Coppola Damn. But I fully expected that generation of great filmmakers from the 70s to feel that way. James Gunn is so annoying. I think HE is the pretentious one. He always talks like he's making the equivalent of a Picasso painting when he makes a super hero film. Shut up, nerd.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Oct 22, 2019 18:28:05 GMT
james gunn is such a fucking nerd jesus christ why did we stop bullying people like this
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Oct 22, 2019 18:46:49 GMT
It wouldn't be so bad if they took profit from the billion dollar grossers and still funded regular mid tier films but they dont.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 25, 2019 20:16:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Oct 25, 2019 20:36:54 GMT
I still think the “cinema” distinction is a little pretentious, but he’s not wrong. My local AMC (conveniently enough, one stationed at Disney World’s shopping district) airs trailers for movies they never screen all the time. Stuff like Cold War, Stan & Ollie, Wild Rose, and Monos that all passed me by. Hell, I’ve made peace with the fact that I will NEVER see Parasite in a theatrical setting. Disney and Marvel can adequately be pointed at for homogenization, but it’s just as much on the theater chains who play it safe, force their arthouse films out of screens, and then have the gall to say *Netflix* is upsetting their integrity. Now I’m a Disney fan, and I’m an MCU fan, so I realize I’m part of the problem, but even I think we could do with five less showtimes of Maleficent 2, if it means we can fit Parasite onto a screen.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Oct 26, 2019 0:34:42 GMT
Now I’m a Disney fan, and I’m an MCU fan, so I realize I’m part of the problem, but even I think we could do with five less showtimes of Maleficent 2, if it means we can fit Parasite onto a screen. Liking popular films isn't the problem. It's the lack of enthusiasm and word of mouth for smaller films. I can almost guarantee Scorsese hasn't Logan or The Winter Soldier. If he had then he wouldn't be saying these things.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Oct 26, 2019 1:04:39 GMT
pupdurcs is right. I have 0 interest in superhero films.... I haven't even seen most of them, but in the 50s there were popular stuff too. James Gunn's comparison to Peckinpah, Ford, and Leone is actually not as bad a comparison as some people feel.
Ok so perhaps those films were a bit more intellectually more high-brow, but at that time those were the most popular stuff out in the cinemas because they appealed to the masses. It's kind of the same principle as now. What else in the late 50s was more popular than some of the stuff Ford was making? Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments and The Searchers were the stuff everyone went to see.
That being said, Scorsese has always said that "moviegoing is long dead." And that's not false. That doesn't mean he's saying cinema is dead. I think people just didn't understand what his real point is. He's simply saying that it's no longer a fancy to go to the cinemas anymore. Society has moved on to other things. The man was raised in the 40s and 50s when moviegoing was the only thing anyone liked to do. It gathered families, friends, and loved ones together and was essential to the happiness that people felt in society. Nowadays you can get by fine without having seen a film in the cinemas in your entire life. A wider array of forms of entertainment is present now, and everybody is doing their own thing according to their own inclinations.
We saw when Cinema Paradiso addressed this concept, and that was 1988. "moviegoing is dying" has probably been a thing for about 30 years now. Personally, I think Avatar was last of the true moviegoing films, but that's my own personal take based on nothing except my own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 26, 2019 11:01:40 GMT
pupdurcs is right. I have 0 interest in superhero films.... I haven't even seen most of them, but in the 50s there were popular stuff too. James Gunn's comparison to Peckinpah, Ford, and Leone is actually not as bad a comparison as some people feel. Ok so perhaps those films were a bit more intellectually more high-brow, but at that time those were the most popular stuff out in the cinemas because they appealed to the masses. It's kind of the same principle as now. What else in the late 50s was more popular than some of the stuff Ford was making? Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments and The Searchers were the stuff everyone went to see. That being said, Scorsese has always said that "moviegoing is long dead." And that's not false. That doesn't mean he's saying cinema is dead. I think people just didn't understand what his real point is. He's simply saying that it's no longer a fancy to go to the cinemas anymore. Society has moved on to other things. The man was raised in the 40s and 50s when moviegoing was the only thing anyone liked to do. It gathered families, friends, and loved ones together and was essential to the happiness that people felt in society. Nowadays you can get by fine without having seen a film in the cinemas in your entire life. A wider array of forms of entertainment is present now, and everybody is doing their own thing according to their own inclinations. We saw when Cinema Paradiso addressed this concept, and that was 1988. "moviegoing is dying" has probably been a thing for about 30 years now. Personally, I think Avatar was last of the true moviegoing films, but that's my own personal take based on nothing except my own opinion. But is moviegoing really dying? I get your point about moviegoing oerhaps ceasing to be this big, essential part of people's lives because of the sheer amount of other entertainment options so I would agree that maybe the moviegoing culture has changed a little. But otherwise I think that the notion of moviegoing dying is simply not true. This year alone we've had several box office records: the biggest movie of all time, the biggest PG-rated movie of all time, the biggest G-rated movie of all time...and the biggest R-rated movie is still in theatres, continuing to pull in more and more moviegoers. For all the talk that streaming is destroying the theatrical film there're tons of purely financial proofs that it's just not true. Disney has been usurping the theatrical field but they've also been keeping the theatrical field very much alive. And considering how much current moviegoers are celebrating these releases, cheering and applauding throughout and all that, I'd say that moviegoing is still going. Very strongly.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Oct 26, 2019 15:22:47 GMT
pupdurcs is right. I have 0 interest in superhero films.... I haven't even seen most of them, but in the 50s there were popular stuff too. James Gunn's comparison to Peckinpah, Ford, and Leone is actually not as bad a comparison as some people feel. Ok so perhaps those films were a bit more intellectually more high-brow, but at that time those were the most popular stuff out in the cinemas because they appealed to the masses. It's kind of the same principle as now. What else in the late 50s was more popular than some of the stuff Ford was making? Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments and The Searchers were the stuff everyone went to see. That being said, Scorsese has always said that "moviegoing is long dead." And that's not false. That doesn't mean he's saying cinema is dead. I think people just didn't understand what his real point is. He's simply saying that it's no longer a fancy to go to the cinemas anymore. Society has moved on to other things. The man was raised in the 40s and 50s when moviegoing was the only thing anyone liked to do. It gathered families, friends, and loved ones together and was essential to the happiness that people felt in society. Nowadays you can get by fine without having seen a film in the cinemas in your entire life. A wider array of forms of entertainment is present now, and everybody is doing their own thing according to their own inclinations. We saw when Cinema Paradiso addressed this concept, and that was 1988. "moviegoing is dying" has probably been a thing for about 30 years now. Personally, I think Avatar was last of the true moviegoing films, but that's my own personal take based on nothing except my own opinion. But is moviegoing really dying? I get your point about moviegoing oerhaps ceasing to be this big, essential part of people's lives because of the sheer amount of other entertainment options so I would agree that maybe the moviegoing culture has changed a little. But otherwise I think that the notion of moviegoing dying is simply not true. This year alone we've had several box office records: the biggest movie of all time, the biggest PG-rated movie of all time, the biggest G-rated movie of all time...and the biggest R-rated movie is still in theatres, continuing to pull in more and more moviegoers. For all the talk that streaming is destroying the theatrical film there're tons of purely financial proofs that it's just not true. Disney has been usurping the theatrical field but they've also been keeping the theatrical field very much alive. And considering how much current moviegoers are celebrating these releases, cheering and applauding throughout and all that, I'd say that moviegoing is still going. Very strongly. Well Scorsese is speaking about the culture and experience of moviegoing dying because obviously his "stuck in 1963" mind has a different experience than what any of us has. Of course they've been predicting cinema is dying for decades now. Ever since videocassettes, they thought it would die but people kept going. So it's not been a new thing. I think those records prove the numbers are still solid if not as impressive as the 50s or 60s. But that's ok - it doesn't need to be. Star Wars and Avengers and James Cameron seems to be the automatic cash registers.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Oct 26, 2019 20:48:51 GMT
I still think the “cinema” distinction is a little pretentious, but he’s not wrong. My local AMC (conveniently enough, one stationed at Disney World’s shopping district) airs trailers for movies they never screen all the time. Stuff like Cold War, Stan & Ollie, Wild Rose, and Monos that all passed me by. Hell, I’ve made peace with the fact that I will NEVER see Parasite in a theatrical setting. Disney and Marvel can adequately be pointed at for homogenization, but it’s just as much on the theater chains who play it safe, force their arthouse films out of screens, and then have the gall to say *Netflix* is upsetting their integrity. Now I’m a Disney fan, and I’m an MCU fan, so I realize I’m part of the problem, but even I think we could do with five less showtimes of Maleficent 2, if it means we can fit Parasite onto a screen. the theater chains are capitalist shit but like have you looked into how insane disney's policies are when giving their films to theaters? this disproportionately hurts smaller theaters more, of course, but their monopolistic policies for anyone who wants to screen their films is a huge reason for why things are so bad now
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Oct 26, 2019 20:49:21 GMT
Now I’m a Disney fan, and I’m an MCU fan, so I realize I’m part of the problem, but even I think we could do with five less showtimes of Maleficent 2, if it means we can fit Parasite onto a screen. Liking popular films isn't the problem. It's the lack of enthusiasm and word of mouth for smaller films. I can almost guarantee Scorsese hasn't Logan or The Winter Soldier. If he had then he wouldn't be saying these things. TWS is dogshit lol
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 4, 2019 21:18:17 GMT
Liking popular films isn't the problem. It's the lack of enthusiasm and word of mouth for smaller films. I can almost guarantee Scorsese hasn't Logan or The Winter Soldier. If he had then he wouldn't be saying these things. TWS is dogshit lol 100% of your braindead posts are rancid & infected dog shit. And they ALL have the rotting putrid stench of an insufferable snob who is either addicted or religiously devoted to his own deluded sense of superiority. Give it up.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 5, 2019 1:23:48 GMT
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 5, 2019 1:25:49 GMT
LOL, Scorsese is like, "Oh, you're outraged over what I said? Here is more for you to be outraged about."
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 5, 2019 1:43:09 GMT
He has a point of view, which is his right. I think it's slightly disingenuous to single out Marvel, when it's clear his beef is with franchise filmmaking in general. So all the output of George Lucas, a big chunk of the output of Spielberg, the Back To The Future movies, a lot of James Cameron's output etc etc. He must have been holding this stuff in for decades. Understandably, as it might upset some colleagues he's reasonably close or on good terms with with if he let them know how little he thinks of their "cinema". Marvel is an easy substitute to vent at instead of in the past coming for bo mer buddies like Spielberg and Lucas and calling Jurassic Park and Star Wars trash.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 5, 2019 2:01:56 GMT
He has a point of view, which is his right. I think it's slightly disingenuous to single out Marvel, when it's clear his beef is with franchise filmmaking in general. So all the output of George Lucas, a big chunk of the output of Spielberg, the Back To The Future movies, a lot of James Cameron's output etc etc. He must have been holding this stuff in for decades. Understandably, as it might upset some colleagues he's reasonably close or on good terms with with if he let them know how little he thinks of their "cinema". Marvel is an easy substitute to vent at instead of in the past coming for bo mer buddies like Spielberg and Lucas and calling Jurassic Park and Star Wars trash. Eh, I think Scorsese probably doesn't have any issue with franchise filmmaking per se. Lucas, Spielberg, Zemeckis to an extent, and Cameron all have a directorial style and flourish (for better or worse), and it's clear he respects artistic control and style, of which all of these directors have or have had at some point. But Marvel's different; it has a house style, dictated not by a director but by a committee (headed by Feige). I doubt he harbors any issues with those filmmakers, regardless of his friendship with them, but most MCU films adhere so rigorously to the pre-established house style that it lacks what Scorsese probably prizes above all else: artistic risk and daring. I'd argue a few MCU films do their best to break free of the established convention ( Thor: Ragnarok, Doctor Strange, Black Panther all feel like they're at least trying new things, with varying degrees of success), but for the most part, they're a corporate product assembled by committee. Which isn't a bad thing, because Marvel's good at what they do, but it's just not his thing. Which is perfectly fine.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Nov 5, 2019 2:15:08 GMT
He has a point of view, which is his right. I think it's slightly disingenuous to single out Marvel, when it's clear his beef is with franchise filmmaking in general. So all the output of George Lucas, a big chunk of the output of Spielberg, the Back To The Future movies, a lot of James Cameron's output etc etc. He must have been holding this stuff in for decades. Understandably, as it might upset some colleagues he's reasonably close or on good terms with with if he let them know how little he thinks of their "cinema". Marvel is an easy substitute to vent at instead of in the past coming for bo mer buddies like Spielberg and Lucas and calling Jurassic Park and Star Wars trash. Given his defense of Hitchcock for similar criticisms (franchise unto himself, a sameness to his movies, theme park thrills), I think he makes it clear it's not big or franchise filmmaking in its entirety he has a problem with but specifically Marvel's corporate policy in how they make their movies.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 5, 2019 2:19:33 GMT
He has a point of view, which is his right. I think it's slightly disingenuous to single out Marvel, when it's clear his beef is with franchise filmmaking in general. So all the output of George Lucas, a big chunk of the output of Spielberg, the Back To The Future movies, a lot of James Cameron's output etc etc. He must have been holding this stuff in for decades. Understandably, as it might upset some colleagues he's reasonably close or on good terms with with if he let them know how little he thinks of their "cinema". Marvel is an easy substitute to vent at instead of in the past coming for bo mer buddies like Spielberg and Lucas and calling Jurassic Park and Star Wars trash. Eh, I think Scorsese probably doesn't have any issue with franchise filmmaking per se. Lucas, Spielberg, Zemeckis to an extent, and Cameron all have a directorial style and flourish (for better or worse), and it's clear he respects artistic control and style, of which all of these directors have or have had at some point. But Marvel's different; it has a house style, dictated not by a director but by a committee (headed by Feige). I doubt he harbors any issues with those filmmakers, regardless of his friendship with them, but most MCU films adhere so rigorously to the pre-established house style that it lacks what Scorsese probably prizes above all else: artistic risk and daring. I'd argue a few MCU films do their best to break free of the established convention ( Thor: Ragnarok, Doctor Strange, Black Panther all feel like they're at least trying new things, with varying degrees of success), but for the most part, they're a corporate product assembled by committee. Which isn't a bad thing, because Marvel's good at what they do, but it's just not his thing. Which is perfectly fine. Yeah....I don't really buy this "house style" stuff with the MCU. I'd argue the reason the MCU doesn't get "franchise fatigue", despite popping out 3 movies a year, is because it doesn't rigerously stick to one style. A Joe Johnston Captain America film is nothing like a Russo Brothers Captain America film. Star Wars has a house style. You get the same thing again and again, which is probably why it's fallen into a rut. Fast And Furious movies have a "house style". Marvel constantly adapts to suit it's characters. They don't even consistently make the same genre. It all features "action", but Spider-Man is a teen comedy, Guardians Of The Galaxy is absurdist sci-fi, the last two Captain America films are geo-political thrillers. It's a lazy criticism that, imho, doesn't really hold up.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 5, 2019 2:35:59 GMT
He has a point of view, which is his right. I think it's slightly disingenuous to single out Marvel, when it's clear his beef is with franchise filmmaking in general. So all the output of George Lucas, a big chunk of the output of Spielberg, the Back To The Future movies, a lot of James Cameron's output etc etc. He must have been holding this stuff in for decades. Understandably, as it might upset some colleagues he's reasonably close or on good terms with with if he let them know how little he thinks of their "cinema". Marvel is an easy substitute to vent at instead of in the past coming for bo mer buddies like Spielberg and Lucas and calling Jurassic Park and Star Wars trash. Given his defense of Hitchcock for similar criticisms (franchise unto himself, a sameness to his movies, theme park thrills), I think he makes it clear it's not big or franchise filmmaking in its entirety he has a problem with but specifically Marvel's corporate policy in how they make their movies. I dunno. Marty seems all over the place on this. I think there is probably a generational issue at play. A lot of the "old",movies he would no doubt defend as risky "cinema" were made under the constraints of the studio system, no doubt getting endless corporate notes from producers before being deemed ready for release. Filmmakers worked within those systems and still produced works that reprsented them as filmmakers ( Douglas Sirk as an example). But he grew up on those films, so won't neccesarily hold them to the standard he holds those working within modern studio systems.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Nov 5, 2019 2:39:16 GMT
I dunno. Marty seems all over the place on this. I think there is probably a generational issue at play. A lot of the "old",movies he would no doubt defend as risky "cinema" were made under the constraints of the studio system, no doubt getting endless corporate notes from producers before being deemed ready for release. Filmmakers worked within those systems and still produced works that reprsented them as filmmakers ( Douglas Sirk as an example). But he grew up on those films, so won't neccesarily hold them to the standard he holds those working within modern studio systems. Scorsese explicitly addressed that: You don't even know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Nov 5, 2019 2:44:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 5, 2019 2:49:25 GMT
He has a point of view, which is his right. I think it's slightly disingenuous to single out Marvel, when it's clear his beef is with franchise filmmaking in general. So all the output of George Lucas, a big chunk of the output of Spielberg, the Back To The Future movies, a lot of James Cameron's output etc etc. He must have been holding this stuff in for decades. Understandably, as it might upset some colleagues he's reasonably close or on good terms with with if he let them know how little he thinks of their "cinema". Marvel is an easy substitute to vent at instead of in the past coming for bo mer buddies like Spielberg and Lucas and calling Jurassic Park and Star Wars trash. I've seen this line of thought come up a lot recently. Really don't see how it's "disingenuous" to criticize one movie but not another. If Scorsese doesn't like Marvel he's not under any special obligation to criticize every action movie ever made. Speaking of "disingenuous" I also don't think you can treat Spielberg/Lucas as indistinguishable from Marvel. I don't even like the original SW trilogy that much but at least they are fairly well directed, have somewhat of a thematic center, and some character development, which is more than I can say for virtually all of the MCU's output that I have seen. It's just 2 1/2-3 hours of fighting with some one liner sprinkled in, good guys win, cut to end credits. Infinity War and Civil War were pretty much just constant fighting after some basic plot set up in the first act. They are some of the most vacuous movies I've ever seen. Even with the huge budgets they can't even make them look good, everything is lifeless and chrome-y. Then the actual quality of Marvel movies is only half of Scorsese's criticism here. In the 80's and 90's there was still a significant audience for adult dramas and they could still regularly show at multiplexes and be profitable, even with Spielberg/Lucas/Cameron's big blockbusters. If you look at most theaters all but one or two movies showing is a reboot/sequel and almost all of those are just formulaic knockoffs. Bad movies have always existed and been popular in some instances but right now they're swallowing the whole industry. Lawrence of Arabia, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Graduate, and 2001 were top grossing movies when they came out. The Godfather was the highest grossing film of all time when it came out. It hasn't always been like this where the only movies that makes big money are crap for 16 year old boys.
|
|