|
Post by quetee on Nov 5, 2019 3:56:03 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. This decade breaks an 89 year old best picture winner being number one in its year of release. That is pretty bad new s and shows where we are headed movie wise.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 5, 2019 12:27:34 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. Right on. Reading this op-ed it's pretty clear in every word that Scorsese is afraid that today's franchise machine will simply push the other movies away from theatres, and that's something that was not happening when Spielberg/Lucas/Cameron were making their blockbusters. There was room for all kinds of box office hits, they were co-existing naturally. And it seemed like after having a big franchise-y blockbuster hit the studios were simply more willing to then give a shot to other movies too and to filmmakers to do different stuff. It's Spielberg's whole thing, basically - make a blockbuster, then make something more personal. And sometimes something personal just happened to turn into a blockbuster, like "E.T." I look at Barry Levinson, for instance - he made "Rain Man", it became the highest grossing film of 1988 (!), and then the studios just couldn't demand the same thing from him because that wasn't a franchise-type movie. And instead after its success he was given money to make an extremely personal memory movie "Avalon". And that's what the studios are definitely not doing these days, and that's what bothers Scorsese so much.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 5, 2019 22:12:38 GMT
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. Right on. Reading this op-ed it's pretty clear in every word that Scorsese is afraid that today's franchise machine will simply push the other movies away from theatres, and that's something that was not happening when Spielberg/Lucas/Cameron were making their blockbusters. There was room for all kinds of box office hits, they were co-existing naturally. And it seemed like after having a big franchise-y blockbuster hit the studios were simply more willing to then give a shot to other movies too and to filmmakers to do different stuff. It's Spielberg's whole thing, basically - make a blockbuster, then make something more personal. And sometimes something personal just happened to turn into a blockbuster, like "E.T." I look at Barry Levinson, for instance - he made "Rain Man", it became the highest grossing film of 1988 (!), and then the studios just couldn't demand the same thing from him because that wasn't a franchise-type movie. And instead after its success he was given money to make an extremely personal memory movie "Avalon". And that's what the studios are definitely not doing these days, and that's what bothers Scorsese so much. I thought of Rain Man in my other post but didn't mention it because some people really hate it on here. Regardless of what you think of the movie, the type of movie it was and how successful it was shows how different things were. It's a small scale drama that's basically just about the relationship between two brothers and their taking a road trip. It did 350 mil worldwide in late 80's money which would probably be close to a billion today. Cruise was in it right after Top Gun which probably brought in some young people who otherwise would not have been interested in a movie like that, but that does not account for all of it. Even a huge star like Cruise or Leo could not turn a movie like that into that big of a success today either. Leo's prestige movies are still high concept for the most part. Another thing with Rain Man is that it didn't do very well on its opening weekend and built momentum through positive word of mouth later. I can't remember the last time there was a true sleeper hit like that, maybe My Big Fat Greek Wedding or some low budget horror movie. The success of a movie is all about the opening weekend now so studios just want to put out the things that are easiest to market pre release. Even a movie like Joker that has great legs still had a huge opening and just ended up being an even bigger success than it would have been otherwise through good word of mouth and repeat viewings, it's not a sleeper hit.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Nov 5, 2019 22:57:32 GMT
Right on. Reading this op-ed it's pretty clear in every word that Scorsese is afraid that today's franchise machine will simply push the other movies away from theatres, and that's something that was not happening when Spielberg/Lucas/Cameron were making their blockbusters. There was room for all kinds of box office hits, they were co-existing naturally. And it seemed like after having a big franchise-y blockbuster hit the studios were simply more willing to then give a shot to other movies too and to filmmakers to do different stuff. It's Spielberg's whole thing, basically - make a blockbuster, then make something more personal. And sometimes something personal just happened to turn into a blockbuster, like "E.T." I look at Barry Levinson, for instance - he made "Rain Man", it became the highest grossing film of 1988 (!), and then the studios just couldn't demand the same thing from him because that wasn't a franchise-type movie. And instead after its success he was given money to make an extremely personal memory movie "Avalon". And that's what the studios are definitely not doing these days, and that's what bothers Scorsese so much. I thought of Rain Man in my other post but didn't mention it because some people really hate it on here. Regardless of what you think of the movie, the type of movie it was and how successful it was shows how different things were. It's a small scale drama that's basically just about the relationship between two brothers and their taking a road trip. It did 350 mil worldwide in late 80's money which would probably be close to a billion today. Cruise was in it right after Top Gun which probably brought in some young people who otherwise would not have been interested in a movie like that, but that does not account for all of it. Even a huge star like Cruise or Leo could not turn a movie like that into that big of a success today either. Leo's prestige movies are still high concept for the most part. Another thing with Rain Man is that it didn't do very well on its opening weekend and built momentum through positive word of mouth later. I can't remember the last time there was a true sleeper hit like that, maybe My Big Fat Greek Wedding or some low budget horror movie. The success of a movie is all about the opening weekend now so studios just want to put out the things that are easiest to market pre release. Even a movie like Joker that has great legs still had a huge opening and just ended up being an even bigger success than it would have been otherwise through good word of mouth and repeat viewings, it's not a sleeper hit. Nowadays the Internet spreads the word on movies, and shows trailers continuously. In the 80s, it was a different matter. Anyway, Rain man came out after The color of money that gave Tom Cruise a more refined actor's image. Working with Paul Newman probably gave him a pass for a serious role as the one in Rain man, and that attracted a wider audience. On a side note, he was in Cocktail too after top gun, giving him visibility among teenage girls.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,556
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Nov 6, 2019 0:41:58 GMT
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Nov 17, 2019 21:41:25 GMT
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,653
Likes: 4,350
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on Nov 17, 2019 21:48:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Nov 17, 2019 22:01:07 GMT
Lmfao
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Nov 17, 2019 22:46:37 GMT
Each of those 4 paragraphs somehow manages to top the previous one(s) by introducing brand-new, distinct ways of being inaccurate and/or annoying.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Nov 17, 2019 23:19:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 18, 2019 1:07:04 GMT
Don't disagree with them on "cinema" and I can understand why they would take issue with that. But the "financial success is an indicator of emotional success" line is bullshit and proves Scorsese's point. Financial success is indicative of Disney's hardcore marketing and distribution, it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie either way.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Nov 18, 2019 6:30:10 GMT
It's all about financial success. Pretending it's about emotion is a joke.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Dec 6, 2019 23:08:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Dec 7, 2019 1:56:03 GMT
I would play the hell out of that game.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 7, 2019 14:53:43 GMT
Except from the Avengers, I can only see Scorsese films and the Godfather in that game...
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 13, 2019 16:27:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Dec 13, 2019 17:19:57 GMT
Don't disagree with them on "cinema" and I can understand why they would take issue with that. But the "financial success is an indicator of emotional success" line is bullshit and proves Scorsese's point. Financial success is indicative of Disney's hardcore marketing and distribution, it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie either way. i agree. He loss me at that line too. I was like what is this mfer talking about.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Dec 13, 2019 17:31:36 GMT
More than 10 is saying something...
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 14, 2019 4:38:10 GMT
This is so pointless. No reason for Scorsese to even show up and IDK why Disney is trying to draw even more attention to this. One of the greatest directors of all time calling your movies crap isn't good PR.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 25, 2019 18:52:09 GMT
LOL, this is how Marty's daughter wrapped the Christmas presents for him
|
|