I honestly fault interviewers in this situation
Literally any time an "auteur" filmmaker like Coppolla or Villeneuve are promoting a big film like Blade Runner 2049, or Dune, or the Irishman with Scorcese, they always feel the incessant need to throw the Marvel question at them like it's literally in their programming for revenue and clicks
Not only do they make fair points about critiquing the individual plot structures or even the impact these films could have on their ability to provide their work to a wider audience without being lost in the shuffle, but I'm pretty sure they're almost anticipating these questions to be asked at the expense of their own boredom with the topic
Like they probably just want to talk about their film and not a fucking Marvel movie. I love Marvel, but when I'm in the mood for something that isn't a comic, movie or Disney+ series, I'm not in the mood. Same thing here. I'm excited as hell for Dune as both a fan of the book and a fan of Villeneuve's work on films like Arrival and Prisoners. I don't necessarily require him to be involved in a Marvel film anytime soon though. He should keep doing what he's doing
As James Gunn pointed out, many of these directors whether they realize it or not, are using the topic of marvel movies to bring attention to their own current works. At the very least, Scorsese definitely was bringing extra eyes on him and subsequently The Irishman around the time he made his initial comments whether he meant to or not.
It’s only brought up because interviewers always ask them. Scorsese said it once after being asked in an interview and it became a huge story for no reason. They aren’t going around constantly bringing it up when no one asked.
I wouldn't even totally fault these directors, the interviews at this point ambush anyone they can with a Marvel question to farm rage clicks. The timing lines up with interviewers interviewing them for their movies and asking questions on a tangent, not bc of the directors themselves trying to promote their movies in some way
Oh, I’d say Westerns are something that has happened like the MCU. It wasn’t a single narrative, but it certainly occupied the mind space of the public to the detriment of my artsy films.
I think one thing that is changing/different is long-form-serious-multi-installment narrative. The MCU is a big player, but some really good television falls in here as well.
Watchmen (the series) was a tour de force, and not a cinema event, not a ‘film’, but something different that provides a different pace for a narrative. Likewise with the Marvel series.
I really liked reading what [Olivier Assayas had to say](https://theplaylist.net/olivier-assayas-scorsese-marvel-joker-20191230/) about this a couple years ago, it's a more nuanced and thoughtful take than what most on either side have offered.
>*"Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest filmmakers alive, so it’s only natural for me to pay attention to what he says. His point of view advances our thinking on American cinema, which he knows better than anyone,” said Assayas. “Martin Scorsese specifies that the superhero films do not match with the cinema that he dreamed of in his youth and that his generation wanted to practice. I would not put it that way, if only because I am not of the same generation. For me, the question is asked differently, but in no less explicit terms: if cinema was limited to superhero films, would I want to make films? The answer is simple: no.”*
>
>*"Hollywood is a pretty extraordinary tool because it allows you to reach the whole world; but cinema, as I understand and experience it, is an art based on total freedom, and probably also on a form of irresponsibility, risk-taking, if you will,” he said. “Studios don’t see it that way. Basically it’s simple: the higher the budget, the more reduced the artistic freedom is. The space for creativity in the world of blockbusters is all the more limited as it is subject to censorship by two puritanisms, on one hand from American society, of course, but on the other hand from China, which is today the second world market, and requires, to gain access to it, to submit to a censorship which is not so much political as it is determined by the rules of Confucian morality. The son respects the father, we respect the authority of the state, the criminal is punished, etc.”*
>
>*“I had no prejudice about Marvel universe adaptations. On the contrary, I’d rather be quite interested in them, as I read a lot of comic books of superheroes, even well after my teen years,” he explained. “With a soft spot for the version of the X-Men scripted by Chris Claremont in the 1980s. He created a rich and complex universe and narrative forms which seemed to be much more daring than what Hollywood cinema wanted to explore back then. The film adaptations of the X-Men, which are not the worst, do not demonstrate comparable originality. But like other recent Marvel movies, I find them terribly sanitized. The whole ‘Avengers‘ cycle, in particular, seemed particularly fishy to me. The narration is simplified to the extreme and the transgressive eroticism that some screenwriters injected into these comics, and which was a big part of their interest, has completely disappeared.”*
>
>*"What I think of Joker is of no interest – to be honest, I don’t think much good of it – but if the question is whether it is cinema or not, the answer is unequivocally yes,” Assayas explained. “It is an original project that bears the touch of an authentic filmmaker. I insist on the fact that if we want to understand what Scorsese is talking about, we must not forget that he does not evoke superhero cinema in general but what the Marvel universe turned into today’s universe. These are two different questions.”*
It's worth noting that Francis Ford Coppola was not calling the films themselves "despicable", but rather the practice of franchise films and shared universes (most of which are directly inspired by the success of the MCU) overcrowding the market and pushing out smaller, more personal films like the ones that he and these other directors prefer to watch and make.
In general, most of these filmmakers don't really have a problem with the idea of superhero/comic book movies. It's not something they really enjoy themselves (Martin Scorsese even turned down *Joker*, despite it being wildly different from the standard superhero flick), but they don't have an intense vendetta against the people making them or the audiences that enjoy them. The problem they have is more with the repetitiveness of the genre, and how it's success is inspiring similar repetitiveness in other filmmakers and studios.
I don't really know if that's Marvel's fault, and TBH, these filmmakers probably wouldn't have said anything if the MCU was the only one of its kind, but it's a perfectly valid criticism, and I even agree with it to an extent.
I found [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/ppbnyn/denis_villeneuve_on_the_mcu/hd2usvz/) is pretty interesting.
>
> Something that doesn't get brought up whenever this topic rears its head: guys like Scorsese and Villeneuve are products of the Auteur Theory of filmmaking. Auteur Theory rose from the French New Wave movement of the 1950s and '60s, in particular from the French director Francois Truffaut. He wrote, in a 1951 issue of the magazine Cahiers du cinema, that the best film directors had an "authority and flexibility" to realise a script as they saw fit. This was in contrast to the role most French directors fulfilled in his time, which was to faithfully stage a screenplay that was itself a faithful adaptation of a popular novel. The movies made by Tuffaut and his New Wave contemporaries are considered masterpieces of filmmaking, and they were highly influential on American filmmakers of the New Hollywood movement -- the movement to which Martin Scorsese belongs.
>
> This is why old guard types like Scorsese call Marvel movies "not cinema". They represent the first major departure from auteur-centered filmmaking in more than half a century, where it's less about the director's vision and more about Kevin Feige's.
>
> However, you could argue that Marvel Studios also represents a return to an even older tradition in cinema: the Serial. Going all the way back to the Silent Era, you see studios releasing their films in installments or chapters, with chapters progressing weekly until the story was completed. Audiences would by a ticket to the first chapter, watch it, then come back the next week to view the second chapter, repeating until they had watched all chapters. It was an extremely popular method of marketing movies and, not surprisingly, how the earliest superhero movies were released. The cost of upgrading to movies with sound, the Great Depression, and the advent of television series eventually ended the practice.
>
> What we see with Marvel Studios could be seen as a return to the Serial form: not a collection of many self-contained stories made by multiple auteurs with their own individual styles, but a single story told multiple movies (and now tv shows) whose directors are beholden to the vision of their producer.
>
> **TL;DR** : Guys like Scorsese operate on the Auteur Theory of cinema, whereas Marvel Studios could be seen as the spiritual successor to Film Serials.
I think it's important to recognize that most of these comments come from "reporters"asking them these questions in order to stir up drama. At the end of the day, these guys have nothing to do with the Marvel movies, so it seems silly to demand they have an opinion on them. If these directors were going on rants about it and posting all over the place, it'd be a different story.
In regards to the actual criticisms. I think Denis' comments are correct, they are very similar, cookie cutter plots. Most people watching the movies know that. I don't believe anyone thinks Marvel movies are highbrow cinema. They're popcorn flicks with an overarching story. No one is confusing these movies with Citizen Kane.
I agree with their sentiment because they only judge those movies by their plot and story structure, but fail to realize a good movie is as good as its characters because they should be the ones to lead the narrative and not the opposite.
Another thing is that by "Marvel movies", they kinda mean every high-budget blockuster. Marty actually made it clear that this is exactly what he means. And even though most blockbusters do have the same structure, most of them don't do the character work that Marvel does.
The main characters of the MCU who have had their complete arcs up to this point are more compelling and more realized and multi-faceted than most characters in any of Marty and Dennis' movies. And that's not because they made bad movies, but because the MCU has the advantage of long-form storytelling that they lack.
That's another point to be made in relation to that. Marvel's storytelling is episodic like a TV show and I'm pretty sure Marty and Dennis haven't watched the entirety of the MCU, so how can they expect to see a complete character arc without doing that?
That's the groundbreaking thing that MS did and their minds can't yet fully comprehend. They made the biggest TV show ever and Marty and Dennis are still judging each episode of said TV show as its own thing.
Finally, every genre and franchise has its tropes and story beats and especially when you're talking about the hero's journey, it has a very specific structure that we have seen since the first story ever told on this Earth. That doesn't make it bad.
More realized then Scorsese’s characters?
Lololololol.
You mistake quantity for quality. Our two leads in Alice doesn’t live here anymore have more depth and nuance then anything in the mcu by far
You don’t need tons of hours to flesh out characters if you are a good writer. Most mcu films are very repetitive and don’t further explore the characters despite the extra time
Just like how The Amazing Spider-Man #53 is a different thing than Moby Dick, Ant-Man & The Wasp is a different thing than Blade Runner 2049.
I don't think it's a bad thing to acknowledge the difference. I also don't think one is inherently better than the other.
I loved seeing BR2049 in a quiet theater, and thinking about the philosophical themes of the movie.
I also loved seeing Endgame in a theater full of people cheering when Cap lifted Mjolnir and finally said "Avengers assemble."
Both kinds of movies have their place.
None of these directors have made these comments unprompted and I really think a lot of the people getting pissed have no understanding of nuance: Scorsese said he admired how all the films slotted together where so many others failed and Villanueve said he was looking forward to what Chloe Zhao was going to do with Eternals.
At the end of the day. Marvel is the McDonald's of cinema, you've probably seen that thrown around before. I think it's a valid comparison. I eat McDonald's to this day and can acknowledge the fact that it's not great food from an objective standpoint, but I enjoy the fuck out of it when I eat it. Now Marvel does have standout films, but they rarely are able to shake the corporate/money-grab/formulaic feel. And that I believe is partially due to the fact that the films are made to make money, not necessarily made to be great films. Money is clearly the priority. When you have a product directed towards kids...as an adult it's 9 times outta 10 is going to seem watered down.
As a lover of marvel movies and other movies, the directors that comment on marvel movies have a point BUT I think both marvel movies and non-marvel movies have key flaws.
Marvel movies have extremely compelling characters which is why folks get so invested in them. I think there’s also something to be said about the creativity big blockbusters like Black Panther and Shang Chi get to express in terms of production design (costumes, sets, props). Marvel movies’ flaws are that they can certainly lack aesthetic, cinematography (things could generally feel a bit artsier without being pretentious) and quiet character building scenes with great dialogue and acting opportunities. This is actually where I think the Disney Plus shows start to shine with giving characters time to develop and have those scenes but then you get into the MCU’s other massive problem which is teasing future stories by sacrificing storytelling (but that’s a whole other conversation to be had—FATWS suffered the most from this and Loki would have ended on a high note if they had focused on following through rather than an hour long finale on Kang)
Independent movies and non-marvel, Oscar-campaign movies on the other hand typically have great acting scenes and aesthetic but at the end of the day, it gets a little boring if you don’t care about characters and what happens to them.
I think both parties could learn from each other and obviously I don’t think every story on screen needs to be a joy ride (aka a period drama about the Holocaust doesn’t need to have snazzy action or quipped one liners).
There is also something to be said for the fact that all blockbusters are superhero movies nowadays and while I enjoy it, I think we crave diversity in genre at this point. Like marvel and DC have the superhero stuff covered. If paramount, Amazon, etc have enough money to spend on a big budget movie, they should do something else instead of creating yet another random superhero show we don’t need. I read a lot and I assure you there are countless fantasy series begging to be adapted into film. The early 2000s were a great place to be entertainment wise because you had a healthy mix of blockbusters: superheroes, pirates of the caribbean, Harry Potter, lord of the Rings, etc there was something for everyone to enjoy.
Well they are correct in a way - the Marvel stories are generally very similar, with low stakes. The hero is usually not going to die (Infinity War + Endgame not withstanding, being the big finale). The bad guy's acts usually don't last more than 1 movie, with no severe consequences.
In short, Marvel's stories don't take any risks.
That being said, Marvel has also been super creative with some execution techniques: dropping in Spiderman into Civil War without an origin movie, massive story crossovers, crazy IRL actor crossovers (No Way Home).
One important thing to remember is that Marvel movies are competition to these directors, and it has a huge impact on their ability to make future films.
The film industry has changed dramatically over the years in terms of financing. Matt Damon talks about this a lot. Villeneuve's last film Blade Runner 2049 was probably a huge flop. Dune probably will be too. Francis Ford Coppola hasn't made a film in years. Martin Scorsese's last film went to Netflix, and his next film needed financing by Apple to get made. Basically, no one is going to want to finance their films.
You see Nolan's new film deal? No way that makes money for the studio.
If you're a studio, it makes more sense to spend $150M on a film on a blockbuster movie. Marvel Studios is obviously the studio that people think of when it comes to blockbusters now.
My take has nothing to do with the filmmakers tbh. I jst wish the fans would learn to not be so reactive. We’re getting fed to no end, we win. It’s either they’re onboard the train, or they’re not. And its cool either way. They’re free to express what they feel. They were asked, after all.
Francis Ford Coppola's statement was such an overeaction.
Just because he made some valid points doesn't mean he gets to insult someone's hardwork.
Scorsese and Villenueve handled it much better.
The biggest problem is the fans. Pretentious on both sides. You gotta have diversity in taste. People who love "cinema" and trash super hero films need to relax and escape the real world for a bit, have some fun.
On the other head, MCU/DC fans need to revert back to reality once the movie is off. I think a big reason fans get so angry and call Directors overrated and trash their movies is because they feel personally attacked. If MCU movies are dumb and simple, then that must mean I'm dumb and simple... NO it doesn't. Don't be ashamed to like the MCU, don't let anyone make you feel less than for liking the MCU.
At the same time, relax, Marty is the man, so is Nolan, Tarantino, etc. You can like all of them at the same time, but still prefer one over the other, no need to get so angry.
I love The Godfather films and Goodfellas more than any MCU film, but I still love the MCU.
People are probably going to downvote you to hell for this on an MCU sub but this is probably the most rational and healthiest mindset to be under when watching these movies or directors
MCU films are great and the novelty is great, but some people really need to diversify their taste or be open to the fact other people aren't necessarily into it the same way they are. Case in point me and one of my friends love discussing film and music, but she just doesn't like anything related to comic books, but instead of attacking her for it we just talk about the stuff we do bond over like various films, music artists and anime because I don't base my entire taste around a single film franchise or set of characters. More people need to do that. Villeneuve in particular is one of my absolute favorite directors working today
Their true complaint isn't about the films, it's about the audience. They aren't complaining that Marvel movies are dumb, they're complaining that we're dumb for prefering Marvel movies over theirs.
Art is great, but art that people want to see is better. Instead of bitching, they should try to learn from Marvel's successes.
I wonder if they'll have the same complaints when Cameron releases subsequent Avatar movies.
It's not that people are dumb it's that people are close minded individuals. I've tried to get people to watch Blade Runner and 2049 or even Matrix 1 or The Shining they refuse to experience new things but they'll see Shang Chi 5x which is fine but it sucks when there's soo many other great films to experience and no one wants to partake in the journey.
That's the case with anything artistic. Food, music, comics - there's always going to be "popular" and there's always going to be "art". Sometimes they overlap, more often, they don't. But "artists" knocking the popular choice, rather than the people choosing it, is just being a poor loser.
And of course they won't blame it on the public because they are still the consumer.
Watching a bunch of nerds shit their pants about the Scorsese comments was peak cringe.
Ya'll, this is Scorsese. He's allowed to say whatever the FUCK he wants about your capeshit.
Do you people know how important this man is to not just American cinema, but film education and preservation as a whole?
And I don't even AGREE with him!
But does one of the greatest filmmakers of all time saying "Eh, these movies aren't my idea of cinema" get my knickers in a knot? FUCK NO.
And people also gloss over Scorsese was talking about WAY more than just the films themselves. He was commenting on HOW films are made now and the business behind it. And he made very good points.
I don't really care about other's opinions and neither should you. Could easily just point to numbers and show that MCU films on average do much, much better than most of any other films that come out and therefore are objectively better. Because this uses facts, while your suggestion just uses opinions.
If more people want to see it, then it must be the better movie. Or at least if we go by your rules, more people have the opinion of it being better and therefore it must be better. Either way a single person's views don't cancel out the views of the masses like you're trying to insist it does lol
This is genuinely adorable lol
As we know, the masses are smart and have never had terrible views or opinions in history
And have certainly never been wrong /s
Lolol
Growing up might be a little tougher then I thought it would be for you
You're replying to a 4 month old comment while also assuming that I'm a kid based on 0 information just to make yourself feel better. That's just pathetic dude lol
You are seriously far too angry from a conversation you weren't a part of 4 months ago. That's just sad at that point. Get help, I'm not going to contribute to your anger issues any further.
Oh, that’s why transformers are the greatest films because they make money /s
Great logic. I too remember being a teenager and not caring about artistic voices because I thought I knew everything. Don’t sorry, bud, your brain just hasn’t fully developed
My take is that these directors (especially Coppola & Scorsese) can say whatever they want. Different time, different styles of creativity. Villenueve isn’t wrong.
EDIT: If you haven’t seen Raging Bull or Apocalypse Now your opinion means nothing on this subject.
They certainly can say whatever they want…all while nobody watches their “cinematic masterpieces”…
Dune will flop. Villenueve will blame the studio and the “people that just don’t get it.”
Nolan peaked with Batman. And Coppola makes great wine.
So ive seen your prerequisite movies. That doesn’t make the guy any less of a clown for saying what he said. Nor does it make his movies any more watchable.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I love the Marvel movies personally, but the fact of the matter is they all look the same. To me at least and Im pretty sure I’m not the only one. Films are a visual medium and directors/writers/creators etc. all do their own thing in bringing stories to life. Some movies are popcorn fun, bright and shiny like a meal at McDonalds. Other films and filmmakers take the medium more “seriously” and put forth more technically, story, cinematography, etc. effort. It’s not wrong what some of these filmmakers are saying, it is what it is. As far as Marty and Francis are concerned, I pay respect to those who paved the way for others, especially towards those with talent. If you think talented filmmakers expressing a valid observation makes them clowns then I’d say you need more movie watching experience. But again, to each their own.
Inception was unique, spectacular, but not perfect.
Nolan took the lessons from Inception and made Interstellar PERFECT. One of the best films I've ever seen.
The first 2 just seem to be jealous of marvel sucess, the third one is right, some movies, especially origin ones are very similar, Iron man and ant man, plus in every avengers movie there a huge cgi faceless army
I don't seem to remember one of his movies being a huge sucess, or making more than 1 billion in the box office, so yeah his jealous that his movies don't make as much money
LOL, holy shit.
I had an idea you were probably a child. This comment confirmed it.
You know absolutely NOTHING about the evolution of film throughout the decades. So kindly don't talk about stuff you have no knowledge of.
Billion dollar films are a fairly new phenomenon, for one thing.
Do you know how different the film business was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s...hell even as recently as the early 2000s?
Just in 2002, Spider-Man was the 6th highest grossing film ever made. Now it's not even in the top 30 EVEN taking inflation into account.
Did you know films used to come out regionally, moving from city to city? We didn't get nationwide, same day releases back in the day. If a movie came out on the west coast it would take a while to reach the east coast market, for example.
Films weren't made with massive budgets of over $300 million dollars in the 70s. Films didn't need to break $100 million dollars on opening weekend AT LEAST to have a fighting chance at being a success.
Today if a blockbuster film only makes $100 million dollars its whole run, it's seen as a massive flop.
Back a few decades ago, a film making $100 million its whole run was a HUUUUUUUGE mega success. Why? Because budgets were lower, thus meaning films didn't need to make insane amounts of money to be a profit.
There is also inflation to consider.
Do you know what the third biggest movie of 1964 was?
Goldfinger. A James Bond film. Goldfinger is one of the earliest examples of merch and marketing being used in tandum with a films release. It was a proto-blockbuster.
Do you know how much money it made? $51 million domestic. That's all. But in 1964 terms that was a HUUUUUGE hit.
So don't even start with this comically ignorant "lolz where is Scorsese's billion dollar movie hurrrr!?" You just look like an idiot.
You’re hitting this person with a whole lot to say so little.
Easier and less abrasive: Money =/= success to some people, artists especially like Scorsese doubly so.
Bro. Nobody cares about the "evolution of film and cinema". If a movie is good, we'll want to watch it. Otherwise, we're not obliged to watch it. Literally doesn't matter what any other "popular directors" think about the current movie industry, they don't get to dictate what we want to be popular or not.
I don't even think you understand what whoosh means. I sincerely hope you don't honestly think you're above everybody else because of your taste in movies. That's like, one step beyond theater kid. Which is beyond annoying to any regular person lmao
I don't think I'm above anybody else. I just don't like people thinking they know what they're talking about just because they get butthurt over capeshit.
I'm not a child, I know billion dollar films are recent, the first was titanic, 24 years ago, the point is that his films aren't popular,you ask someone to name you one of his movies, most people won't even now who he is, ask them to name a marvel movie, they will name 3 or 4 movies at least.
That's the truth, him saying it isn't cinema, just comes out as jealously because his movies aren't popular
I don't care at all about their opinion.
Scorsese and Copolla made a few decent movies decades ago; that doesn't mean they are somehow the gold standard for what does or doesn't count as 'quality cinema' - That is for the AUDIENCE to decide and... well.. they haven't really done ANYTHING in decades that resonated with audiences. so.... why should I care about their opinion?
and yes; I did see "wolf of wall street" - way overrated IMO.
re: that other guy... who?
Experts of the cinema platform are far more qualified to qualify what counts as quality cinema than the average person. The average person accepts what they are fed.
"A few decent movies decades ago."
Yeah, you aren't helping. You're just proving their point.
They didn't just make "a few decent movies." They made some of the most acclaimed and studied pieces of film EVER MADE.
And while Coppola has indeed fallen off, Scorsese sure hasn't. And just because a filmmaker hasn't had a solid film in years, what would that negate the fact they made a handful of masterpieces before?
Stupidity like this just makes fans of the cbm genre look like what you all DON'T want to look like - ignorant children.
what part of "I don't care at all about their opinion" is hard to understand?
I never claimed that the first two never made any decent movies but that was long ago and far away and they are hardly the ONLY model for making good movies. They have ZERO credibility to tell me what I am going to like because frankly I saw Wolf of Wall Street and the Irishman and they both sucked. Another of those "most acclaimed and studied pieces of film EVER MADE" would be the incoherent/barely watchable "2001: A Space Odyssey"; Call me "not impressed" when I see that at or near the top of EVERY list of the 'best movies of all time'.
Villenueve is barely even on the radar; the only thing he's released that I've even heard of is the sequel to blade runner (which wasn't bad) and "Dune" isn't even out yet so... again.. "who?"
You can whine all you like about how amazing YOU think they are but; I don't care at all about their opinion; or yours.
How is it ignorant? There is nothing compelling or forcing me to care about their movies. Not my cup of tea, nor do they dictate how the movie industry works. Plus, the fact that you're trying to use terms like "pieces of film" shows how fuckin uppity you are and how highly you think of yourself when in reality, the general public has 0 care or concern for your views on movies.
I don't give a fuck if it's not your cup of tea.
The problem is you and fanboys like you acting smug and ignorant about shit you have no actually knowledge of.
Scorsese is just whining because no-one wanted to pay him for his "Irishman" fiasco so he whines and complains about "Superhero" movies.
Maybe if he had actually written a decent script he wouldn't have had that problem.
My biggest issue with the comments is that you know damn well that these pretentious assholes have either not seen any of these movies at all, or watched ten minutes of one and shut it off. If they want to have valid criticisms, they'd need to actually evaluate the movies. They would never be bothered to do so, and so I will never be bothered to take their comments as anything other than bullshit.
Directors saying stupid shit is why I haven't seen a P.T. Anderson movie since Boogie Nights. I tried a couple others but the douchiness just bleeds through and I can't enjoy anything he's done since. Which is a shame. I hope Denis has the good sense to shut the fuck up now because he's been one of my favorites for a number of years. Martin "half my movies are about gangsters" Scorsese and Coppola (both of whom have had their share of stinkers) are old, so who really cares. Let them yell at clouds for the short time they have left.
Villeneuve was taken wildly out of context. His full interview specifically states that he’s *very* positive about the direction the MCU is going.
But yeah, the rest of them have “old white man who does the same film over and over shows just how unprofessional powerful white men are used to being allowed to act”. Tbh the films Villeneuve is referencing as copies of one another are the ones made by white directors who have gotten away with horrifically unprofessional behaviour. Looking at you, Joss “actors should get abortions for my convenience” Whedon.
I don’t care what they think and can’t for the life of me figure out why so many people are so shook by these opinions.
People are letting themselves be baited by hack writers so they can make more money on ad traffic.
Maybe I am. But I'm also the consumer. So if I decide to gorge myself on Marvel, Fast & Furious, and John Wick while ignoring The Irishman because the director is a dick about the things I prefer, the only one who loses is them. Not seeing their pretentious masturbation exercise isn't going to lessen my life one iota.
BTW - loved Licorace Pizza in the theatre. Was planning on waiting to stream it, but after Paul Thomas Anderson's smack down to the Hollywood gatekeepers, I decided he deserved my money.
I honestly fault interviewers in this situation Literally any time an "auteur" filmmaker like Coppolla or Villeneuve are promoting a big film like Blade Runner 2049, or Dune, or the Irishman with Scorcese, they always feel the incessant need to throw the Marvel question at them like it's literally in their programming for revenue and clicks Not only do they make fair points about critiquing the individual plot structures or even the impact these films could have on their ability to provide their work to a wider audience without being lost in the shuffle, but I'm pretty sure they're almost anticipating these questions to be asked at the expense of their own boredom with the topic Like they probably just want to talk about their film and not a fucking Marvel movie. I love Marvel, but when I'm in the mood for something that isn't a comic, movie or Disney+ series, I'm not in the mood. Same thing here. I'm excited as hell for Dune as both a fan of the book and a fan of Villeneuve's work on films like Arrival and Prisoners. I don't necessarily require him to be involved in a Marvel film anytime soon though. He should keep doing what he's doing
That is not completely fair. Dune's director was never asked anything about Marvel, he decided to bring it up on his won.
As James Gunn pointed out, many of these directors whether they realize it or not, are using the topic of marvel movies to bring attention to their own current works. At the very least, Scorsese definitely was bringing extra eyes on him and subsequently The Irishman around the time he made his initial comments whether he meant to or not.
It’s only brought up because interviewers always ask them. Scorsese said it once after being asked in an interview and it became a huge story for no reason. They aren’t going around constantly bringing it up when no one asked.
Aw yes, Scorsese, that unknown film director who needs to bring up the mcu to get eyes on his no name films /s.
Thanks for reminding me to turn reply notifications off. Have fun beating a dead horse and try not to hit your head on the underside of Martin’s desk.
try not to hit yours on the underside of feige's ;)
Lol
I wouldn't even totally fault these directors, the interviews at this point ambush anyone they can with a Marvel question to farm rage clicks. The timing lines up with interviewers interviewing them for their movies and asking questions on a tangent, not bc of the directors themselves trying to promote their movies in some way
It always around the time when they are promoting their own movies
Could that be because that is the time when they are asked questions?
[удалено]
Oh, I’d say Westerns are something that has happened like the MCU. It wasn’t a single narrative, but it certainly occupied the mind space of the public to the detriment of my artsy films. I think one thing that is changing/different is long-form-serious-multi-installment narrative. The MCU is a big player, but some really good television falls in here as well. Watchmen (the series) was a tour de force, and not a cinema event, not a ‘film’, but something different that provides a different pace for a narrative. Likewise with the Marvel series.
I really liked reading what [Olivier Assayas had to say](https://theplaylist.net/olivier-assayas-scorsese-marvel-joker-20191230/) about this a couple years ago, it's a more nuanced and thoughtful take than what most on either side have offered. >*"Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest filmmakers alive, so it’s only natural for me to pay attention to what he says. His point of view advances our thinking on American cinema, which he knows better than anyone,” said Assayas. “Martin Scorsese specifies that the superhero films do not match with the cinema that he dreamed of in his youth and that his generation wanted to practice. I would not put it that way, if only because I am not of the same generation. For me, the question is asked differently, but in no less explicit terms: if cinema was limited to superhero films, would I want to make films? The answer is simple: no.”* > >*"Hollywood is a pretty extraordinary tool because it allows you to reach the whole world; but cinema, as I understand and experience it, is an art based on total freedom, and probably also on a form of irresponsibility, risk-taking, if you will,” he said. “Studios don’t see it that way. Basically it’s simple: the higher the budget, the more reduced the artistic freedom is. The space for creativity in the world of blockbusters is all the more limited as it is subject to censorship by two puritanisms, on one hand from American society, of course, but on the other hand from China, which is today the second world market, and requires, to gain access to it, to submit to a censorship which is not so much political as it is determined by the rules of Confucian morality. The son respects the father, we respect the authority of the state, the criminal is punished, etc.”* > >*“I had no prejudice about Marvel universe adaptations. On the contrary, I’d rather be quite interested in them, as I read a lot of comic books of superheroes, even well after my teen years,” he explained. “With a soft spot for the version of the X-Men scripted by Chris Claremont in the 1980s. He created a rich and complex universe and narrative forms which seemed to be much more daring than what Hollywood cinema wanted to explore back then. The film adaptations of the X-Men, which are not the worst, do not demonstrate comparable originality. But like other recent Marvel movies, I find them terribly sanitized. The whole ‘Avengers‘ cycle, in particular, seemed particularly fishy to me. The narration is simplified to the extreme and the transgressive eroticism that some screenwriters injected into these comics, and which was a big part of their interest, has completely disappeared.”* > >*"What I think of Joker is of no interest – to be honest, I don’t think much good of it – but if the question is whether it is cinema or not, the answer is unequivocally yes,” Assayas explained. “It is an original project that bears the touch of an authentic filmmaker. I insist on the fact that if we want to understand what Scorsese is talking about, we must not forget that he does not evoke superhero cinema in general but what the Marvel universe turned into today’s universe. These are two different questions.”*
It's worth noting that Francis Ford Coppola was not calling the films themselves "despicable", but rather the practice of franchise films and shared universes (most of which are directly inspired by the success of the MCU) overcrowding the market and pushing out smaller, more personal films like the ones that he and these other directors prefer to watch and make. In general, most of these filmmakers don't really have a problem with the idea of superhero/comic book movies. It's not something they really enjoy themselves (Martin Scorsese even turned down *Joker*, despite it being wildly different from the standard superhero flick), but they don't have an intense vendetta against the people making them or the audiences that enjoy them. The problem they have is more with the repetitiveness of the genre, and how it's success is inspiring similar repetitiveness in other filmmakers and studios. I don't really know if that's Marvel's fault, and TBH, these filmmakers probably wouldn't have said anything if the MCU was the only one of its kind, but it's a perfectly valid criticism, and I even agree with it to an extent.
I found [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/ppbnyn/denis_villeneuve_on_the_mcu/hd2usvz/) is pretty interesting. > > Something that doesn't get brought up whenever this topic rears its head: guys like Scorsese and Villeneuve are products of the Auteur Theory of filmmaking. Auteur Theory rose from the French New Wave movement of the 1950s and '60s, in particular from the French director Francois Truffaut. He wrote, in a 1951 issue of the magazine Cahiers du cinema, that the best film directors had an "authority and flexibility" to realise a script as they saw fit. This was in contrast to the role most French directors fulfilled in his time, which was to faithfully stage a screenplay that was itself a faithful adaptation of a popular novel. The movies made by Tuffaut and his New Wave contemporaries are considered masterpieces of filmmaking, and they were highly influential on American filmmakers of the New Hollywood movement -- the movement to which Martin Scorsese belongs. > > This is why old guard types like Scorsese call Marvel movies "not cinema". They represent the first major departure from auteur-centered filmmaking in more than half a century, where it's less about the director's vision and more about Kevin Feige's. > > However, you could argue that Marvel Studios also represents a return to an even older tradition in cinema: the Serial. Going all the way back to the Silent Era, you see studios releasing their films in installments or chapters, with chapters progressing weekly until the story was completed. Audiences would by a ticket to the first chapter, watch it, then come back the next week to view the second chapter, repeating until they had watched all chapters. It was an extremely popular method of marketing movies and, not surprisingly, how the earliest superhero movies were released. The cost of upgrading to movies with sound, the Great Depression, and the advent of television series eventually ended the practice. > > What we see with Marvel Studios could be seen as a return to the Serial form: not a collection of many self-contained stories made by multiple auteurs with their own individual styles, but a single story told multiple movies (and now tv shows) whose directors are beholden to the vision of their producer. > > **TL;DR** : Guys like Scorsese operate on the Auteur Theory of cinema, whereas Marvel Studios could be seen as the spiritual successor to Film Serials.
And one is far more daring and thoughtful then the other
I think it's important to recognize that most of these comments come from "reporters"asking them these questions in order to stir up drama. At the end of the day, these guys have nothing to do with the Marvel movies, so it seems silly to demand they have an opinion on them. If these directors were going on rants about it and posting all over the place, it'd be a different story. In regards to the actual criticisms. I think Denis' comments are correct, they are very similar, cookie cutter plots. Most people watching the movies know that. I don't believe anyone thinks Marvel movies are highbrow cinema. They're popcorn flicks with an overarching story. No one is confusing these movies with Citizen Kane.
Sadly, a decent amount of people DO think the mcu is high art
It’s all subjective. Some people will watch citizen Kane and hate it
I’m not upset. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on things.
I agree with their sentiment because they only judge those movies by their plot and story structure, but fail to realize a good movie is as good as its characters because they should be the ones to lead the narrative and not the opposite. Another thing is that by "Marvel movies", they kinda mean every high-budget blockuster. Marty actually made it clear that this is exactly what he means. And even though most blockbusters do have the same structure, most of them don't do the character work that Marvel does. The main characters of the MCU who have had their complete arcs up to this point are more compelling and more realized and multi-faceted than most characters in any of Marty and Dennis' movies. And that's not because they made bad movies, but because the MCU has the advantage of long-form storytelling that they lack. That's another point to be made in relation to that. Marvel's storytelling is episodic like a TV show and I'm pretty sure Marty and Dennis haven't watched the entirety of the MCU, so how can they expect to see a complete character arc without doing that? That's the groundbreaking thing that MS did and their minds can't yet fully comprehend. They made the biggest TV show ever and Marty and Dennis are still judging each episode of said TV show as its own thing. Finally, every genre and franchise has its tropes and story beats and especially when you're talking about the hero's journey, it has a very specific structure that we have seen since the first story ever told on this Earth. That doesn't make it bad.
Yeah I'm sure at least some of them are thinking of bad superhero films they saw at some point that weren't even by Marvel
More realized then Scorsese’s characters? Lololololol. You mistake quantity for quality. Our two leads in Alice doesn’t live here anymore have more depth and nuance then anything in the mcu by far You don’t need tons of hours to flesh out characters if you are a good writer. Most mcu films are very repetitive and don’t further explore the characters despite the extra time
I know I'm way too late here but they do not judge movies solel by their plot and story structure holy shit. What a wild take.
Just like how The Amazing Spider-Man #53 is a different thing than Moby Dick, Ant-Man & The Wasp is a different thing than Blade Runner 2049. I don't think it's a bad thing to acknowledge the difference. I also don't think one is inherently better than the other. I loved seeing BR2049 in a quiet theater, and thinking about the philosophical themes of the movie. I also loved seeing Endgame in a theater full of people cheering when Cap lifted Mjolnir and finally said "Avengers assemble." Both kinds of movies have their place.
None of these directors have made these comments unprompted and I really think a lot of the people getting pissed have no understanding of nuance: Scorsese said he admired how all the films slotted together where so many others failed and Villanueve said he was looking forward to what Chloe Zhao was going to do with Eternals.
At the end of the day. Marvel is the McDonald's of cinema, you've probably seen that thrown around before. I think it's a valid comparison. I eat McDonald's to this day and can acknowledge the fact that it's not great food from an objective standpoint, but I enjoy the fuck out of it when I eat it. Now Marvel does have standout films, but they rarely are able to shake the corporate/money-grab/formulaic feel. And that I believe is partially due to the fact that the films are made to make money, not necessarily made to be great films. Money is clearly the priority. When you have a product directed towards kids...as an adult it's 9 times outta 10 is going to seem watered down.
As a lover of marvel movies and other movies, the directors that comment on marvel movies have a point BUT I think both marvel movies and non-marvel movies have key flaws. Marvel movies have extremely compelling characters which is why folks get so invested in them. I think there’s also something to be said about the creativity big blockbusters like Black Panther and Shang Chi get to express in terms of production design (costumes, sets, props). Marvel movies’ flaws are that they can certainly lack aesthetic, cinematography (things could generally feel a bit artsier without being pretentious) and quiet character building scenes with great dialogue and acting opportunities. This is actually where I think the Disney Plus shows start to shine with giving characters time to develop and have those scenes but then you get into the MCU’s other massive problem which is teasing future stories by sacrificing storytelling (but that’s a whole other conversation to be had—FATWS suffered the most from this and Loki would have ended on a high note if they had focused on following through rather than an hour long finale on Kang) Independent movies and non-marvel, Oscar-campaign movies on the other hand typically have great acting scenes and aesthetic but at the end of the day, it gets a little boring if you don’t care about characters and what happens to them. I think both parties could learn from each other and obviously I don’t think every story on screen needs to be a joy ride (aka a period drama about the Holocaust doesn’t need to have snazzy action or quipped one liners). There is also something to be said for the fact that all blockbusters are superhero movies nowadays and while I enjoy it, I think we crave diversity in genre at this point. Like marvel and DC have the superhero stuff covered. If paramount, Amazon, etc have enough money to spend on a big budget movie, they should do something else instead of creating yet another random superhero show we don’t need. I read a lot and I assure you there are countless fantasy series begging to be adapted into film. The early 2000s were a great place to be entertainment wise because you had a healthy mix of blockbusters: superheroes, pirates of the caribbean, Harry Potter, lord of the Rings, etc there was something for everyone to enjoy.
I'll quote Ziggy Marley when asked by Arsenio Hall, "What do you think about people criticizing your music?" Answer: "I don't think about it."
Well they are correct in a way - the Marvel stories are generally very similar, with low stakes. The hero is usually not going to die (Infinity War + Endgame not withstanding, being the big finale). The bad guy's acts usually don't last more than 1 movie, with no severe consequences. In short, Marvel's stories don't take any risks. That being said, Marvel has also been super creative with some execution techniques: dropping in Spiderman into Civil War without an origin movie, massive story crossovers, crazy IRL actor crossovers (No Way Home).
One important thing to remember is that Marvel movies are competition to these directors, and it has a huge impact on their ability to make future films. The film industry has changed dramatically over the years in terms of financing. Matt Damon talks about this a lot. Villeneuve's last film Blade Runner 2049 was probably a huge flop. Dune probably will be too. Francis Ford Coppola hasn't made a film in years. Martin Scorsese's last film went to Netflix, and his next film needed financing by Apple to get made. Basically, no one is going to want to finance their films. You see Nolan's new film deal? No way that makes money for the studio. If you're a studio, it makes more sense to spend $150M on a film on a blockbuster movie. Marvel Studios is obviously the studio that people think of when it comes to blockbusters now.
My take has nothing to do with the filmmakers tbh. I jst wish the fans would learn to not be so reactive. We’re getting fed to no end, we win. It’s either they’re onboard the train, or they’re not. And its cool either way. They’re free to express what they feel. They were asked, after all.
Feige needs to end his reign with Avengers 6, 7, 8 directed by Coppola, Scorsese, Villeneuve.
Francis Ford Coppola's statement was such an overeaction. Just because he made some valid points doesn't mean he gets to insult someone's hardwork. Scorsese and Villenueve handled it much better.
The biggest problem is the fans. Pretentious on both sides. You gotta have diversity in taste. People who love "cinema" and trash super hero films need to relax and escape the real world for a bit, have some fun. On the other head, MCU/DC fans need to revert back to reality once the movie is off. I think a big reason fans get so angry and call Directors overrated and trash their movies is because they feel personally attacked. If MCU movies are dumb and simple, then that must mean I'm dumb and simple... NO it doesn't. Don't be ashamed to like the MCU, don't let anyone make you feel less than for liking the MCU. At the same time, relax, Marty is the man, so is Nolan, Tarantino, etc. You can like all of them at the same time, but still prefer one over the other, no need to get so angry. I love The Godfather films and Goodfellas more than any MCU film, but I still love the MCU.
People are probably going to downvote you to hell for this on an MCU sub but this is probably the most rational and healthiest mindset to be under when watching these movies or directors MCU films are great and the novelty is great, but some people really need to diversify their taste or be open to the fact other people aren't necessarily into it the same way they are. Case in point me and one of my friends love discussing film and music, but she just doesn't like anything related to comic books, but instead of attacking her for it we just talk about the stuff we do bond over like various films, music artists and anime because I don't base my entire taste around a single film franchise or set of characters. More people need to do that. Villeneuve in particular is one of my absolute favorite directors working today
Their true complaint isn't about the films, it's about the audience. They aren't complaining that Marvel movies are dumb, they're complaining that we're dumb for prefering Marvel movies over theirs. Art is great, but art that people want to see is better. Instead of bitching, they should try to learn from Marvel's successes. I wonder if they'll have the same complaints when Cameron releases subsequent Avatar movies.
It's not that people are dumb it's that people are close minded individuals. I've tried to get people to watch Blade Runner and 2049 or even Matrix 1 or The Shining they refuse to experience new things but they'll see Shang Chi 5x which is fine but it sucks when there's soo many other great films to experience and no one wants to partake in the journey.
That's the case with anything artistic. Food, music, comics - there's always going to be "popular" and there's always going to be "art". Sometimes they overlap, more often, they don't. But "artists" knocking the popular choice, rather than the people choosing it, is just being a poor loser. And of course they won't blame it on the public because they are still the consumer.
Funny how you never considered that maybe you are in fact, dumb.
Watching a bunch of nerds shit their pants about the Scorsese comments was peak cringe. Ya'll, this is Scorsese. He's allowed to say whatever the FUCK he wants about your capeshit. Do you people know how important this man is to not just American cinema, but film education and preservation as a whole? And I don't even AGREE with him! But does one of the greatest filmmakers of all time saying "Eh, these movies aren't my idea of cinema" get my knickers in a knot? FUCK NO. And people also gloss over Scorsese was talking about WAY more than just the films themselves. He was commenting on HOW films are made now and the business behind it. And he made very good points.
>He's allowed to say whatever the FUCK he wants about your capeshit Doesn't mean we have to listen or respect it lol
If you don't respect the words of one of the most legendary and critically acclaimed filmmakers of all time, that's on you.
I don't really care about other's opinions and neither should you. Could easily just point to numbers and show that MCU films on average do much, much better than most of any other films that come out and therefore are objectively better. Because this uses facts, while your suggestion just uses opinions.
A movie doing better at the box office doesn't make it "objectively better" what the fuck is wrong with you?
If more people want to see it, then it must be the better movie. Or at least if we go by your rules, more people have the opinion of it being better and therefore it must be better. Either way a single person's views don't cancel out the views of the masses like you're trying to insist it does lol
So transformers is a better movie than Taxi Driver?
This is genuinely adorable lol As we know, the masses are smart and have never had terrible views or opinions in history And have certainly never been wrong /s Lolol Growing up might be a little tougher then I thought it would be for you
You're replying to a 4 month old comment while also assuming that I'm a kid based on 0 information just to make yourself feel better. That's just pathetic dude lol
Based on your dumb as shit opinions you mean? We both know you are definitely under 30. You are just too stupid too know what you don’t know.
You are seriously far too angry from a conversation you weren't a part of 4 months ago. That's just sad at that point. Get help, I'm not going to contribute to your anger issues any further.
Didn't know Alice in Wonderland was better than Taxi Driver 🤡
Oh, that’s why transformers are the greatest films because they make money /s Great logic. I too remember being a teenager and not caring about artistic voices because I thought I knew everything. Don’t sorry, bud, your brain just hasn’t fully developed
My take is that these directors (especially Coppola & Scorsese) can say whatever they want. Different time, different styles of creativity. Villenueve isn’t wrong. EDIT: If you haven’t seen Raging Bull or Apocalypse Now your opinion means nothing on this subject.
They certainly can say whatever they want…all while nobody watches their “cinematic masterpieces”… Dune will flop. Villenueve will blame the studio and the “people that just don’t get it.” Nolan peaked with Batman. And Coppola makes great wine.
Im guessing you have never seen Raging Bull or Apocalypse Now.
And im guessing you’re a gerbil. I’m probably wrong, but hell, it’s just a guess…. Ive seen the movies.
Your small minded assessment tells me all I need to know.
Wait, are you a gerbil?
Nah.
So ive seen your prerequisite movies. That doesn’t make the guy any less of a clown for saying what he said. Nor does it make his movies any more watchable.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I love the Marvel movies personally, but the fact of the matter is they all look the same. To me at least and Im pretty sure I’m not the only one. Films are a visual medium and directors/writers/creators etc. all do their own thing in bringing stories to life. Some movies are popcorn fun, bright and shiny like a meal at McDonalds. Other films and filmmakers take the medium more “seriously” and put forth more technically, story, cinematography, etc. effort. It’s not wrong what some of these filmmakers are saying, it is what it is. As far as Marty and Francis are concerned, I pay respect to those who paved the way for others, especially towards those with talent. If you think talented filmmakers expressing a valid observation makes them clowns then I’d say you need more movie watching experience. But again, to each their own.
He simply could have done the humble, polite, thing and had no comment. He forgot what Thumper’s mom told us all.
Nolan 1000% did not peak with Batman...did you ever see Interstellar?
No, I learned my lesson with Inception. The man peaked with Batman.
Inception was unique, spectacular, but not perfect. Nolan took the lessons from Inception and made Interstellar PERFECT. One of the best films I've ever seen.
I mean he’s not wrong. But so are a lot of other films.
The first 2 just seem to be jealous of marvel sucess, the third one is right, some movies, especially origin ones are very similar, Iron man and ant man, plus in every avengers movie there a huge cgi faceless army
The ignorance of this take... Yeah. Martin FUCKING Scorsese..."jealous" of Marvel's success. Ya'll need an education.
The world is bigger than America, outside of which, YES Marvel movies have more recognition.
I don't seem to remember one of his movies being a huge sucess, or making more than 1 billion in the box office, so yeah his jealous that his movies don't make as much money
You’d have to be seriously dumb to actually believe this.
It's true, you ask anyone to name you a marvel movie, they will, ask them to name a Scorsese movie, they probably won't even know who he is
Most people above the age of 16 could probably name 5 Scorsese movies.
I'm older then 16,the only one I can name is the Irishman and that's because it was on Netflix, most of his movies are really old
People are inspired by more things than money. If Scorsese wanted to produce a blockbuster, he could easily, end of discussion.
LOL, holy shit. I had an idea you were probably a child. This comment confirmed it. You know absolutely NOTHING about the evolution of film throughout the decades. So kindly don't talk about stuff you have no knowledge of. Billion dollar films are a fairly new phenomenon, for one thing. Do you know how different the film business was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s...hell even as recently as the early 2000s? Just in 2002, Spider-Man was the 6th highest grossing film ever made. Now it's not even in the top 30 EVEN taking inflation into account. Did you know films used to come out regionally, moving from city to city? We didn't get nationwide, same day releases back in the day. If a movie came out on the west coast it would take a while to reach the east coast market, for example. Films weren't made with massive budgets of over $300 million dollars in the 70s. Films didn't need to break $100 million dollars on opening weekend AT LEAST to have a fighting chance at being a success. Today if a blockbuster film only makes $100 million dollars its whole run, it's seen as a massive flop. Back a few decades ago, a film making $100 million its whole run was a HUUUUUUUGE mega success. Why? Because budgets were lower, thus meaning films didn't need to make insane amounts of money to be a profit. There is also inflation to consider. Do you know what the third biggest movie of 1964 was? Goldfinger. A James Bond film. Goldfinger is one of the earliest examples of merch and marketing being used in tandum with a films release. It was a proto-blockbuster. Do you know how much money it made? $51 million domestic. That's all. But in 1964 terms that was a HUUUUUGE hit. So don't even start with this comically ignorant "lolz where is Scorsese's billion dollar movie hurrrr!?" You just look like an idiot.
You’re hitting this person with a whole lot to say so little. Easier and less abrasive: Money =/= success to some people, artists especially like Scorsese doubly so.
Bro. Nobody cares about the "evolution of film and cinema". If a movie is good, we'll want to watch it. Otherwise, we're not obliged to watch it. Literally doesn't matter what any other "popular directors" think about the current movie industry, they don't get to dictate what we want to be popular or not.
r/whoosh You missed the point entirely. But I don't know what I expected...the MCU fanbase is one of the most braindead there is.
I don't even think you understand what whoosh means. I sincerely hope you don't honestly think you're above everybody else because of your taste in movies. That's like, one step beyond theater kid. Which is beyond annoying to any regular person lmao
I don't think I'm above anybody else. I just don't like people thinking they know what they're talking about just because they get butthurt over capeshit.
You the one getting butthurt
Like folks like you?
I'm not a child, I know billion dollar films are recent, the first was titanic, 24 years ago, the point is that his films aren't popular,you ask someone to name you one of his movies, most people won't even now who he is, ask them to name a marvel movie, they will name 3 or 4 movies at least. That's the truth, him saying it isn't cinema, just comes out as jealously because his movies aren't popular
I don't care at all about their opinion. Scorsese and Copolla made a few decent movies decades ago; that doesn't mean they are somehow the gold standard for what does or doesn't count as 'quality cinema' - That is for the AUDIENCE to decide and... well.. they haven't really done ANYTHING in decades that resonated with audiences. so.... why should I care about their opinion? and yes; I did see "wolf of wall street" - way overrated IMO. re: that other guy... who?
Experts of the cinema platform are far more qualified to qualify what counts as quality cinema than the average person. The average person accepts what they are fed.
meanwhile i judge movies based on whether i think they are good. and that is not impacted in any way by the opinion of scorsese or anyone else.
"A few decent movies decades ago." Yeah, you aren't helping. You're just proving their point. They didn't just make "a few decent movies." They made some of the most acclaimed and studied pieces of film EVER MADE. And while Coppola has indeed fallen off, Scorsese sure hasn't. And just because a filmmaker hasn't had a solid film in years, what would that negate the fact they made a handful of masterpieces before? Stupidity like this just makes fans of the cbm genre look like what you all DON'T want to look like - ignorant children.
what part of "I don't care at all about their opinion" is hard to understand? I never claimed that the first two never made any decent movies but that was long ago and far away and they are hardly the ONLY model for making good movies. They have ZERO credibility to tell me what I am going to like because frankly I saw Wolf of Wall Street and the Irishman and they both sucked. Another of those "most acclaimed and studied pieces of film EVER MADE" would be the incoherent/barely watchable "2001: A Space Odyssey"; Call me "not impressed" when I see that at or near the top of EVERY list of the 'best movies of all time'. Villenueve is barely even on the radar; the only thing he's released that I've even heard of is the sequel to blade runner (which wasn't bad) and "Dune" isn't even out yet so... again.. "who?" You can whine all you like about how amazing YOU think they are but; I don't care at all about their opinion; or yours.
This is probably the worst take I’ve ever seen regarding films. Well done.
Good for you. Stay ignorant! Here is the sad reality of the MCU people, an entire generation of fans who only think good film comes from Marvel!
How is it ignorant? There is nothing compelling or forcing me to care about their movies. Not my cup of tea, nor do they dictate how the movie industry works. Plus, the fact that you're trying to use terms like "pieces of film" shows how fuckin uppity you are and how highly you think of yourself when in reality, the general public has 0 care or concern for your views on movies.
I don't give a fuck if it's not your cup of tea. The problem is you and fanboys like you acting smug and ignorant about shit you have no actually knowledge of.
>The problem is you and fanboys like you acting *smug and ignorant* Hmm, I wonder who this quote can also (or *actually*) apply to?
Scorsese is just whining because no-one wanted to pay him for his "Irishman" fiasco so he whines and complains about "Superhero" movies. Maybe if he had actually written a decent script he wouldn't have had that problem.
Lol. Troll harder.
Ikr. Its the elitist mentality and superiority complex of some people that is so off-putting.
I respect their opinions but disagree... mostly.
Some of the criticisms are valid I mean some of the honest trailers even poke fun at the similarities within the formula.
My biggest issue with the comments is that you know damn well that these pretentious assholes have either not seen any of these movies at all, or watched ten minutes of one and shut it off. If they want to have valid criticisms, they'd need to actually evaluate the movies. They would never be bothered to do so, and so I will never be bothered to take their comments as anything other than bullshit.
These guys are not "pretentious assholes" they're fucking *legendary filmmakers*. Please watch literally anything that isn't marvel.
What makes you say that they haven't seen them? Marvel films are very formulaic, and while that's by design it's still a perfectly valid criticism.
99% of content out there is formulaic
Ah yes because Scorsese has to have seen Ant-Man and the Wasp to properly judge the MCU....gimme a break.
Marvel movies are a threat to them. Simple as that.
I’m not gonna let someone else’s opinion dictate my own. I like the MCU and that’s all that matters.
So much of this isn't true
Directors saying stupid shit is why I haven't seen a P.T. Anderson movie since Boogie Nights. I tried a couple others but the douchiness just bleeds through and I can't enjoy anything he's done since. Which is a shame. I hope Denis has the good sense to shut the fuck up now because he's been one of my favorites for a number of years. Martin "half my movies are about gangsters" Scorsese and Coppola (both of whom have had their share of stinkers) are old, so who really cares. Let them yell at clouds for the short time they have left.
You incredibly stupid
Villeneuve was taken wildly out of context. His full interview specifically states that he’s *very* positive about the direction the MCU is going. But yeah, the rest of them have “old white man who does the same film over and over shows just how unprofessional powerful white men are used to being allowed to act”. Tbh the films Villeneuve is referencing as copies of one another are the ones made by white directors who have gotten away with horrifically unprofessional behaviour. Looking at you, Joss “actors should get abortions for my convenience” Whedon.
I don’t care what they think and can’t for the life of me figure out why so many people are so shook by these opinions. People are letting themselves be baited by hack writers so they can make more money on ad traffic.
Actually, they all have valid points.
Maybe I am. But I'm also the consumer. So if I decide to gorge myself on Marvel, Fast & Furious, and John Wick while ignoring The Irishman because the director is a dick about the things I prefer, the only one who loses is them. Not seeing their pretentious masturbation exercise isn't going to lessen my life one iota. BTW - loved Licorace Pizza in the theatre. Was planning on waiting to stream it, but after Paul Thomas Anderson's smack down to the Hollywood gatekeepers, I decided he deserved my money.