# Martin Scorsese on the current state of film and the loss of artistic risk



## J.J. Maxx (Nov 5, 2019)

Martin Scorsese, one of the best filmmakers and storytellers of a generation, was called out for saying the current wave of Marvel movies were, in his words, 'not cinema'. In a new opinion article in the New York Times, he clarifies his statement and expounds on the state of cinema as a whole.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

I enjoyed this article, because I believe that his thoughts just as easily apply to literature and I think it's a positive conversation to be had.

From what Scorsese is saying, he laments for gritty, individual artistic storytelling in films. Today's blockbusters, such as contained in the Marvel conglomerate, are much like boy bands were in music, manufactured to precisely hit all the sugary saccharine cravings that hit people in all the right places. He says, _'Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.'
_
These films are made my committee, all the pieces  stitched together to achieve a single goal of being, in my opinion, the fast food of cinema.

Now, I think there will be those who will claim that these thoughts are simply the opining of a generation essentially telling people to 'get off my lawn' and that everything was better 'in our day'. I don't believe that. I think it's easy to get lulled into a coma of overly-comedic stories and films. Of course there are exceptions, but they are are becoming fewer and fewer.

In the literary world, I believe this trend is a lagging indicator. As novels become less consumed, the desire to squeeze the maximum profit from a book will increase, and risk will become a four-letter word.

People love happy endings. It's a universal truism. However, I think that shows such as Game of Thrones, where the 'good guys' were often killed off, I believe people began to remember that tragedies are just as good, if not sometimes better than comedies. I remember back in 2016, when my wife and I went to see La La Land on our date night. As we are both fans of musicals and theater, we really enjoyed the movie. However, the movie is not a comedy. The guy doesn't get the girl, and the movie does an amazing job of showing that, just like in real life, our choices take us to where we are, even if it isn't where we thought we wanted to go. I remember how I felt after watching that movie. It's a unique feeling, and one I don't feel very often watching the latest Iron Man movie. 

I thought I would share my thoughts on this as a writer, because storytelling crosses many mediums and societal trends seem to span all mediums. 

Cheers.

~ J. J. Maxx


----------



## Squalid Glass (Nov 5, 2019)

Good post, J.J. 

I appreciate both *cinema *and popcorn flicks. Marvel movies work in the same tradition as older stuff like _Flash Gordon _and my favorite movie, _Star Wars_.

Why can't we appreciate the fact that there is room for both highbrow and lowbrow work? Even as studios pump money into franchises, quality film is still being made. Look at _The Lighthouse._


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 6, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> Why can't we appreciate the fact that there is room for both highbrow and lowbrow work? Even as studios pump money into franchises, quality film is still being made. Look at _The Lighthouse._



Possibly because (and, by the way, I'm not so much making this argument myself as suggesting it for for discussion) there is a strong correlation between the cultural domination of lowbrow art and the artistic illiteracy/general stupidity of the consuming public. 

What I mean is this. There is nothing inherently wrong with popcorn movies. There is nothing inherently wrong with the equivalents either: Reality TV, trashy magazines, boy bands, etc. All these things have their obvious reasons for sparking satisfaction and far be it from anybody to dictate what can or cannot be enjoyed.

But...let's think a moment: It costs money to see a movie. It costs money to buy a new book. Most of this stuff costs money, they're rather expensive pastimes. Money aside, it also costs time. Personally, I see _maybe _one movie at the theater every other month (kids are a killer for that) so, when I am picking out a movie with my wife, my choice of movie is less about choosing what I want to see and more about choosing what I think will make for the best 'bang for the buck' in terms of the occasion. Subsequently I don't take huge risks on whether what I am about to spend my time and money on is actually worth seeing.

Fortunately I happen to like things like _The Lighthouse_, so I like to think I'm okay. But for the average folks, the guys who consider _The Fifth Element _and _Blade Runner _to be about as avant garde as it gets? They aren't as likely to go see some artsy French movie or some shit about two weird dudes in a lighthouse filmed in black and white. Because their time is important too and _Transformers 10 _is playing. It becomes about making a choice in a world where there are too many choices of books, movies, plays, movies, pieces of art, etc to ever be seen. 

Consequently, Scorsese's 'unifying and risky vision of an individual artist' doesn't get seen by the vast majority of people and those people, assuming we believe that such movies are beneficial, suffer from not seeing them. You know, I listen to a lot of these people yammer on about all these esoteric and obscure TV shows and I wonder how they possibly have enough hours in the day to do it all. 

Then I come to understand, hey, probably because they don't have children, they don't have responsibilities, perhaps not all of them have full-time jobs, and I can kind of see how it's possible in a life of time and leisure to experience highbrow and lowbrow in equal, luxurious portions. But most of us normal schmucks don't have time to fill our heads with whatever- we barely have time to _sleep - _and so the small slices of art we can grab where we can become the entirety of our intellectual selves. 

I can't watch Marvel movies because fundamentally it's something that I cannot justify the time to sit there and watch knowing that it's essentially middling popcorn cinema and choosing it will mean I won't get to see The Lighthouse or read Faulkner or some shit. If I make a different choice, Marvel is all I will see this week and, over time, yeah...I think that would make me pretty stupid, honestly. They aren't smart movies.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Nov 6, 2019)

Lucky, the issue of time is a good point. I suppose because I don't have children, I have a bit more freedom. My wife and I invest a lot of time in low and high art, so we're pretty lucky.

But I would also caution us to not be historical revisionists. The masses and the deep thinkers have always engaged in this dance, and who's to say the pop culture of today won't be the Shakespeare of tomorrow. I would argue that the MCU actually possesses some of the same deep themes and dives into human nature that great literature has. For example, the MCU can be read as one long analysis of the role of fatherhood. I'm sure the graduate courses have already been offered.

Here's another good read on this subject, specifically in regard to the evolution of Shakespeare in popular culture. https://psmag.com/social-justice/william-shakespeare-culture-war-highbrow-lowbrow-94733


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 6, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> Lucky, the issue of time is a good point. I suppose because I don't have children, I have a bit more freedom. My wife and I invest a lot of time in low and high art, so we're pretty lucky.
> 
> But I would also caution us to not be historical revisionists. The masses and the deep thinkers have always engaged in this dance, and who's to say the pop culture of today won't be the Shakespeare of tomorrow. I would argue that the MCU actually possesses some of the same deep themes and dives into human nature that great literature has. For example, the MCU can be read as one long analysis of the role of fatherhood. I'm sure the graduate courses have already been offered.
> 
> Here's another good read on this subject, specifically in regard to the evolution of Shakespeare in popular culture. https://psmag.com/social-justice/william-shakespeare-culture-war-highbrow-lowbrow-94733



It's not just time, Squalid. It's also resources and platform. 

These are the highest grossing movies of the 2010's (so far):

1 Avengers: Endgame 
2 Star Wars: The Force Awakens 
3 Avengers: Infinity War 
4 Jurassic World 
 5 The Lion King  

These were the highest grossing movies of the 1960's"

1. The Sound of Music 
2. The Graduate 
3. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 
4. The Jungle Book 
5. My Fair Lady 

I'm not going to say which of these two lists contain 'better' movies, that is subjective and irrelevant, only that when I look at the second list, from the 1960's, I see a common thread in that all contain some level of creative risk (with maybe the only exception being The Jungle Book). To Scorsese's point, they all contain 'artistic vision' and speak to an industry that was genuinely interested in innovation. These movies have 'character': We have an original musical, a romantic comedy-drama, a western, a Disney cartoon and another musical, all highly regarded, all hugely popular even now. These are the 'highest grossing', these were the 'popcorn' movies.

But then we come to the 2010's list where 4/5 of those are action/sci-fi and 4/5 of them come from the same studio (Disney). More terrifyingly, all of them are spin-offs or remakes of previous material (two of them are sequels of each other). 

What does that mean? It seems to mean that the tastes of the mainstream public are, largely, becoming more fixated on franchises, on serialization of single ideas, of nostalgia and remaining in a comfort zone in some respects. The very nature of financing sequels is, by definition, that of mitigating risk. Sequels are a relatively new thing in movies, and in literature too.

The emphasis on sci-fi implies that probably a compensatory element for seeing the same shit time after time is to use stories that lend themselves to innovation. Each Jurassic World movie has bigger, more freaky dinosaurs, etc. But there's no _real _challenge in this. 

All these big, modern movies are basically action bonanzas and you can talk about the 'deep themes' of the MCU all you want, I don't believe for a moment the average viewer is watching a Marvel movie and thinking about 'the role of fatherhood'. I do believe that some of the more intellectual, typically rather discerning, types (like yourself) might watch it through that frame, not least because you could hardly stand to watch a Marvel movie that was _only_ about a bunch of mutants roundhouse-kicking the crap out of each other, because that is obviously idiotic. In short, I believe the intellectual crop of Marvel Movies is exaggerated and overstated to compensate for its otherwise cynically-meaningless shell. Anybody may feel free to disagree with that, that's fine.

Yes, in 2019 we are still getting great movies (and great books, and great TV) but there is no doubt in my mind that the prevalence of manufactured turds still massively eclipses and/or contaminates the good stuff. We are seeing that with Star Wars. We recently saw it with Breaking Bad. We will shortly be seeing it with Game Of Thrones. We have seen it for years with superheroes and Alien/Predator and Freddy/Jason and whatever else. We came close to seeing it with JK Rowling. The whole model of the modern creative industry is to find a good idea and hump it dry.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 6, 2019)

Sustrai said:


> I carried a laptop with me to a popular pizza place, drank draft beer at a corner of the bar and worked on my writing.  One Saturday night the place was filled with middle class families.  A person called over to me and asked what I was doing, "I'm working on a book," I replied.  All of a sudden every person in the place was up in arms.  One man said rather loudly, "Why don't you writers write any better books than you do?  All we get is this Tom Clancy crap!"  The rest of the room started in with, "Yeah!  Yeah!  How come!  Why don't you guys do your jobs?!"



View attachment 24867


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 6, 2019)

Sticking to _Marvel_ (and avoiding the slippery debate slope of Hollywood franchises in general), I'd say it's tough to make a superhero film that's _not_ a popcorn flick.

Sure, you _could_ frame the subject matter through a serious/artistic/literary lens, but then you're at risk of straying too far from the core elements (and the core tone) that fans of the genre want.

I do agree that superhero films are currently on the ... sillier end of the spectrum. But I'd say we've come a long way from the day when Superman reversed the spin of the earth to turn back time (lol what?).

Nowadays, if our superheroes need to travel back in time, at least they know well enough to make a fancy-looking machine with lots of impressive buttons and tangled wires, and to throw around words like "quantum" and "energy" a lot. :cower:

And sure, I suppose the argument could be made that superhero films haven't evolved much, aside from glitzier effects and catchier dialogue, but I'd have to disagree. I think some good strides have been made in both the writing and the directing.

Maybe not whole masterpieces—but there have been little glimpses of excellence, here and there, amidst all the punching and zapping. :encouragement:


----------



## Squalid Glass (Nov 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> It's not just time, Squalid. It's also resources and platform.
> 
> These are the highest grossing movies of the 2010's (so far):
> 
> ...



We are certainly in an era of cultural recycling. There are a million reasons why that has happened. I would argue a main reason is the ability these franchises and sequels have to create communities and engagement beyond the movie, which is a sure fire way to make craploads of money.

But it seems disingenuous to me to say the proliferation of specific genre films mostly comprised of bad movies is anything new. Trends change, but trends are always going to dominate eras. Scorsese might believe the old trends were visionary, but he’s making a rose colored glasses kind of argument.

You can’t point to the good old days of the 40s-60s without acknowledging that hundreds of crappy westerns and noir movies dominated the cultural landscape. Scorsese himself has made a living within genre.

And within genre trends, there will be deeper movies that rise to the top of the artistic crop. _The Searchers _and _Shane._ And now we have movies like _The Dark Knight _and even a movie like _Joker. 

_I just think “the good stuff” has always been more niche than “the crappy stuff.” Hell, in early America, seduction novels like _Charlotte Temple_ and _Wieland_ were all the rage.

Ultimately, we have to think about what matters to us in art. I think most people want emotional connections to characters, and that explains a lot of the appeal of popular media. Art that challenges thinking is never going to be the most popular source of media.

But this is the same debate Plato was having thousands of years ago. What else is new?


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 6, 2019)

Scorsese's argument would hold more weight (for me) if he were an active screenwriter, rather than a director.

As it stands, he's built most of his career handpicking well-written screenplays, scripts that've been created by _other writers_—then putting his own directorial stamp on the end product (often with a big "A MARTIN SCORSESE FILM" badge plastered over the screen).

Which isn't to knock his accomplishments—he's clearly proven himself to be a masterful director. Credit where credit is due. But he hasn't been an "individual artist" for decades now, despite how urgently he champions the idea.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 6, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> But it seems disingenuous to me to say the proliferation of specific genre films mostly comprised of bad movies is anything new. Trends change, but trends are always going to dominate eras. Scorsese might believe the old trends were visionary, but he’s making a rose colored glasses kind of argument.
> 
> You can’t point to the good old days of the 40s-60s without acknowledging that hundreds of crappy westerns and noir movies dominated the cultural landscape. Scorsese himself has made a living within genre.
> 
> ...



You are mischaracterizing or misunderstanding my point (and, I think, the point of the thread) somewhat. This isn’t about movies today being crappier than movies in earlier times. There’s nothing about The Force Awakens that is of demonstrably worse quality than Butch Cassidy. Certainly I wouldn’t want to “go there”. Preferring one over the other is therefore a matter of taste.

The point is solely about creative risk. Working within the franchise scope of Star Wars or comic books is inherently less risky than coming up with a new story. Most really big (in terms of box office) movies this decade have not been creatively risky. Even the crappiest, most derivative forties western still had a degree of vision behind it, still came with the risk of failure, even if it didn’t work. Ed Wood movies all sucked but nobody can argue that the man didn’t put his heart and soul into trying to put across his creative vision. They are distinct. They are personal. 

What I particularly notice in newer movies is the increasing reliance on visual awe and less reliance on dialogue. I see a huge difference in the time spent between characters talking in old movies compared to now. A lot of these big blockbusters you could condense the actual dialogue (not screams or one liners) into probably 5 minutes or so. Again, that’s another sign of less creative risk. Because talking in movies can be (and often is) boring. Carrying an audiences interest via dialogue over a period of time requires a skill set that nowadays is harder to find than just commissioning a lobby of design nerds to create explosive battles. It used to be the other way around, of course. Special effects used to be insanely difficult and expensive.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Nov 6, 2019)

I just disagree that this issue of creative risk is any different than it has always been. How is working within a genre with the same actors for every movie any different than using a franchise as the starting point for a film? How are _Goodfellas _and _Casino _in any way more creatively risky and varied than _Iron Man _and _Guardians?_

And I think it’s unfair to say that these modern movies are all flash and no substance. The ones that are fail. Think about movies like _Battleship. _One of the reasons the MCU succeeded is because it is character-driven.

I see the use of special effects the same way color was used when it was first introduced. When used effectively, it is another element a filmmaker can use to enhance the story. When used poorly, it is the focus of the story. There are plenty of popular modern films that fall in the former category.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 6, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> I just disagree that this issue of creative risk is any different than it has always been. How is working within a genre with the same actors for every movie any different than using a franchise as the starting point for a film? How are _Goodfellas _and _Casino _in any way more creatively risky and varied than _Iron Man _and _Guardians?_


I think the key difference is in brand power. Scorsese is a popular director and De Niro, etc are a commercial draw, but they aren't even close to Marvel, Star Wars, et al. What brand power gives you is the ability to generate hype and remain profitable even if the actual substance of the work isn't all that good. 'Phantom Menace' was a great example of that. Most people agree that was a terrible movie, but it still made a huge amount of money and furthered the brand. If 'Phantom Menace' had not been a Star Wars movie, if it had not been protected by its franchise built over years of hype stemming from a once-brilliant idea, it would have likely tanked. Which creates the question of why put a whole lot of artistic effort into the movie, if you know it's going to succeed _financially _no matter what. It removes the incentive to be innovative. 



> And I think it’s unfair to say that these modern movies are all flash and no substance. The ones that are fail. Think about movies like _Battleship. _One of the reasons the MCU succeeded is because it is character-driven.



I didn't say these modern movies are all flash and no substance. What I said is that they are far more quick to utilize visual effects than older movies and far less dependent on what might be termed 'traditional drama' (which is clearly true). Most of the intensity in a movie like Avengers comes from creating these incredibly immersive worlds in which the impossible comes to life. There is nothing wrong with that, only to say that it means no independent filmmaker, much less a novelist, can compete on those terms. 



> I see the use of special effects the same way color was used when it was first introduced. When used effectively, it is another element a filmmaker can use to enhance the story. When used poorly, it is the focus of the story. There are plenty of popular modern films that fall in the former category.



I agree, I'm not opposed to special effects at all. What I am _slightly _opposed to is their dominance in popcorn cinema. 

Whichever way you cut it, there's a clear divide between movies which are critically acclaimed ('highbrow' movies) and those which are financially successful. This is a running conversation every year around Oscar season, isn't it? All these allegedly fantastic movies that have almost no audience share compared to the latest festering rump of Jurassic Whatever.

That did not used to be the case, is my only point. There was a time not terribly long ago when the most successful movies were also widely felt to be 'the best' movies of their time, that it paid to create high-quality dramatic content with an original vision. Gone With The Wind, Lawrence Of Arabia, and so on. A movie like Saving Private Ryan was able to sweep the Oscars and also rake it in at the box office. I don't see many of those movies coming out anymore. A lot of massive blockbusters of the past couple years either are entirely reliant on nostalgia, are part of an established canon, or they are mindless bullshit. 

Then you have these 'sleeper hits' coming out that somehow defy the odds (The Lighthouse is one, The VVitch was another) and that manage to be highly original pieces of cinema and make money, but just because they exist doesn't make them the norm by any stretch. There's also a pessimistic argument that their success is itself a form of nostalgia - movies being filmed in black and white or utilizing old world dialects and making a point of ignoring the 'crash, bang, whallop' of mainstream cinema are as much about novelty as they are about a genuine interest in such material. An example of that would be _The Artist _filmed in black and white and resembling a silent-movie yet its commercial success mainly based around the fad of vintage and 'hey, this looks weird!' rather than any deeper intrigue. Most contemporary westerns fall under that, too.


----------



## KenTR (Nov 6, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> Sure, you _could_ frame the subject matter through a serious/artistic/literary lens, but then you're at risk of straying too far from the core elements (and the core tone) that fans of the genre want.



Isn't that what these movies set out to do in the first place? Getting some pretentious windbag like Christopher Nolan (see: "Interstellar") to revamp Batman without the silly campiness of the original TV show? Now they're silly again. When "Ant-Man" was first advertised, I honestly thought it was a parody. 

I get nothing out of these movies. I watched (well, _started_ to watch) "Venom" and it was the cinematic equivalent of raw cookie dough.

Scorsese is lamenting is the fact that these movies are crowding out more traditional films from theatres, which in turn affects the independent/arthouse films which generally depend on this type of exposure. Remember that Nolan's first few features were independent art films. 

Impressionable young would-be filmmakers are exposed to these movies from an early age. For some of them, this limits the scope of their creativity. See Todd Solondz's "Weiner-Dog" for a brilliantly hilarious bitter parody of this (right down to the title). Never heard of that film? Oh. 

Hollywood has been churning out polyester for decades. One benchmark could be 1992's "Basic Instinct", which started the "erotic thriller" genre. Children require repetition. Safety. People want to know what they are shelling out ten dollars for. 

It's just like the 70's, when slasher films killed the horror genre. Now just about all horror movies revolve around teenagers running afoul of evil dolls, board games or household appliances. 

The whole thing just makes finding more cerebral, daring fare all the more sweeter. 

It's taken nearly three years for Lars Von Trier's "The House That Jack Built" to make it to US home video. It will be out in February. I think it played theatrically for about five minutes. 

What bothers me is how technology is making watching movies so lowbrow. People are watching epic films on their phones. And streaming is slowly killing any medium it touches.

I'm setting all my stories, script or otherwise in the analogue age. Imagine "Dial M For Murder" with smartphones.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Nov 6, 2019)

I think we live in the golden age of television. I think there is a hunger for artistic films and long form story telling, and people fulfill that urge at home on Netflix. The reason people leave their house to go to the theater is for the spectacle of big action on a big screen.

I can watch Unicorn Store at home. I’ll go out to see Captain America. 

Just because the economics of the big box theater doesn’t support middle budget films, doesn’t mean they aren’t getting made. They are straight to stream.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 6, 2019)

I watched The Shining on Halloween. That was an incredible movie--not because of any special effects, but because of Stanley Kubrick's directorial skills. It was mesmerizing. Take, for instance, the scenes where the kid is riding his Big Wheel through the hallways, and you get the change in sound from when he's on bare floor and then to carpet, back to bare floor, and then on carpet, over and over, building tension... You know something weird is going to happen, so you can't take your eyes off the screen. And the perspective is from just a few feet off the floor, so you're right there with the kid, following behind. The camera actually becomes another character in the scene.

Another movie kind of like that is The Exorcist, where the camera is another character. You feel like you're peeking around doorways and corners watching something really weird. It's also hypnotic. And for the most part, believable, assuming the possibility of possession and supernatural powers.

Too many of today's movies rely on animation for explosions and effects, and it's almost always blatantly obvious that it's not real. Before CGI, filmmakers had to actually blow stuff up and light things on fire. They even had to actually make trains crash and use real planes in air battles. Now they can do anything, but it's all lame and boring because it's all just programmed. There's no risk involved... no danger. You see soldiers in battle scenes with bombs dropping five feet from them and they don't even react because it was added after the fact. I mean, why don't they set off a small explosion to freak out the actor and then maybe enhance it with animation? It's those little details that are missing in today's movies. They don't have the grit that they once had.

That said, there are some good movies. But gone are the great directors like Stanley Kubrick. And society has changed. There's no heart and soul in the digital age. It's just cold, manufactured emotions.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Nov 6, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think the key difference is in brand power. Scorsese is a popular director and De Niro, etc are a commercial draw, but they aren't even close to Marvel, Star Wars, et al. What brand power gives you is the ability to generate hype and remain profitable even if the actual substance of the work isn't all that good. 'Phantom Menace' was a great example of that. Most people agree that was a terrible movie, but it still made a huge amount of money and furthered the brand. If 'Phantom Menace' had not been a Star Wars movie, if it had not been protected by its franchise built over years of hype stemming from a once-brilliant idea, it would have likely tanked. Which creates the question of why put a whole lot of artistic effort into the movie, if you know it's going to succeed _financially _no matter what. It removes the incentive to be innovative.



I don't disagree with your point about the power of the brand and studios being afraid to venture outside of what is established (though I think that has always been the case), but I just don't see the connection to a lack of artistic effort. That just seems like a pretentious perspective to take.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 6, 2019)

Squalid Glass said:


> I don't disagree with your point about the power of the brand and studios being afraid to venture outside of what is established (though I think that has always been the case), but I just don't see the connection to a lack of artistic effort. That just seems like a pretentious perspective to take.



Depends how you define 'artistic', right?

If we are talking 3D modeling or whatever, there's no question Marvel has far much artistic effort than Breakfast At Tiffany's. Better costume design, better sound effects...possibly a better score (Moon River gets sorta grating). All these things are important parts of what makes a movie 'artistic'.

But, as a writer on a writing forum, my point of comparison is mainly on _writing_. Here are the 15 'best quotes' from 'Avengers: Infinity War' http://www.dorkly.com/post/86383/15-best-quotes-in-avengers-infinity-war

^Your mileage may vary, but I don't see any 'good' pieces of dialogue there. Nothing that I could say 'wow, that's one hell of a script' (one of these 'best' quotes is the word _motherfucker)_. The rest of them are mostly jokes or ironic quips or pop culture references that, while probably genuinely funny with the visuals, don't translate well to the written word and aren't especially memorable out of context - in all likelihood they're not going to age well either. So, yeah, in terms of writing, I'd say this is fairly low-effort. 

As far as it being a pretentious perspective...that seems...a little unfair. I have not once in this conversation said these movies should not exist or that people who enjoy them are idiots - _I enjoy them. _But just because something is enjoyable doesn't make it good quality, right? I mean, I enjoy an occasional watch of _Dance Moms _but I'm not going to act like it's not garbage. When it comes to Marvel and Star Wars and this nostalgia-kick stuff more generally, I sometimes think there's a kind of Emperor's New Clothes thing. Something where nobody wants to evaluate the material on its own merits as it exists right now, but rather through a lens of how it (or its predecessors) used to make them feel. I think that's a not terribly constructive way to view art.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Nov 7, 2019)

Sorry Lucky, I wasn't saying you're being pretentious. I was referring to the position Scorsese puts forth.

In terms of writing, again, I don't know. I wouldn't judge the writing on the complexity of one liners. I'd actually view those as good writing in context because the writing for each character does a good job creating personalities. I mean, the opening scene in _Iron Man _is a perfect example of immediate characterization and tone. Not to mention the writers of these flicks have weaved together a number of characters and situations and themes throughout like twenty movies. If anything, they've found a way to merge comic books with movies, which in my opinion is pretty artistically skillful. 

I'm not going to sit here and say Marvel movies are masterpieces on the level of something like "The Waste Land," but I don't think the majority of them are on the level of B level fluff or something like that. And within franchises like the MCU, there are very good films and very bad films. _Ant Man _is not that deep. But _Civil War_? Sure, the spectacle of all the superheroes together got all the press, but the movie is a great example of writers presenting sympathetic views for opposing viewpoints on some pretty topical political issues, all expressed through characterization. _Black Panther _does the same thing. I think it's too easy for critics to overlook things like that because the themes are coated in the garb of comic books, a childish obsession.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 7, 2019)

KenTR said:


> Isn't that what these movies set out to do in the first place? Getting some pretentious windbag like Christopher Nolan (see: "Interstellar") to revamp Batman without the silly campiness of the original TV show? Now they're silly again. When "Ant-Man" was first advertised, I honestly thought it was a parody.
> 
> I get nothing out of these movies. I watched (well, _started_ to watch) "Venom" and it was the cinematic equivalent of raw cookie dough.



It's funny you mention Interstellar, because that was probably one of the few 'popcorn' movies I have seen in the last few years that I actually felt was brilliant. Good script, fantastic effects, good adherence to science (well, mostly), likeable characters, really strong creative vision and a clear 'idea' as well as lots of action. It's one of the few movies I voluntarily went to see more than once.

I think part of why I get so impassioned about this shit is because I do actually believe its possible to make a big-screen popcorn movie that's also well made - or at least tolerably interesting. Interstellar is that for me. Another example is the first Independence Day, which in spite of being very silly at times nonetheless had some really mind-blowing moments. Sometimes it happens. Which means when idiotic stuff like _Ant Man _​shows up it's clearly just a lack of giving a crap.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 7, 2019)

I've never seen Interstellar, but I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the movie, Matthew McConaughey takes his shirt off. I think that's a clause in his contracts. He's right up there as one of the most annoying people in Hollywood. Tom Cruise may be at the top of the list.


----------



## Sir-KP (Nov 7, 2019)

Scorsese admitted that his style of movie making is no longer sought for, it's done - or something like that.

I agree with him about Marvel though. Not because I like Robert de Niro's and Al Pacino's movies, but it does make sense. They are taking opportunity of childhood obsession and fan-service. They can try making Marvel vs DC and they will round up big bucks from the movie, soft/hardcopy releases, and merchandise while the fanbases are pointessly arguing on the internet about who's better.

Although to be frank, IMO the state of Marvel right now is what we, as fiction writers, definitely want to achieve.  

Damn, I want to watch Irishman.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 7, 2019)

Irwin said:


> I've never seen Interstellar, but I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the movie, Matthew McConaughey takes his shirt off. I think that's a clause in his contracts. He's right up there as one of the most annoying people in Hollywood. Tom Cruise may be at the top of the list.



I don't recall anything like that happening, but the movie is three hours long so maybe I missed it.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 7, 2019)

Sir-KP said:


> Although to be frank, IMO the state of Marvel right now is what we, as fiction writers, definitely want to achieve.



In what way?


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 8, 2019)

Revisiting Scorsese's article, I found this passage interesting:

That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.​
I know this is painted as a bad thing, but isn't this what novelists do? You have beta readers, editors, revisions and rewrites ...

Traditionally published stories aren't just whipped together and then flung into the waiting arms of the public willy-nilly, with a chest-thumping shout of "no feedback required, because _artistic freedom_!". They're adjusted (and re-adjusted) based on reader feedback, specifically input from those within a target group.

It's very much the same process that Scorsese bemoans. :neutral:

It makes me wonder if he'd frown at the publishing industry in the same way, scoffing at editors and the like, while applauding the "unvetted" nature of the independent writer.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Nov 8, 2019)

Is morality dying in the movie theater? I might as well mention john gardner. I am kind of quoting him. But I know in books this morality or learning should be something people actively seek, hopefully with the help of educational programs. But after your an adult, you are in tough luck. Books are education. We need them to build a more moral future, and what best way than not to be bored while doing so.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 8, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> Revisiting Scorsese's article, I found this passage interesting:
> That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.​
> I know this is painted as a bad thing, but isn't this what novelists do? You have beta readers, editors, revisions and rewrites ...
> 
> ...



I think the difference Scorsese is getting at is the difference between an idea that originates as part of an individual’s artistic vision which may then be edited, tweaked, etc to be commercially viable but nonetheless maintains the vision of the artist...and one that is designed from the ground up by to check the boxes of “what the customer wants” and thus is better described as a consumer product than “art”. Most novelists do the former, few do the latter - and the ones that do would tend to be pretty lowbrow: Trashy romance, cut and paste action thrillers, anything by James Pattinson, etc.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 8, 2019)

Hmm. That's a good distinction. And if that's the point he's making, then I'd have to agree.

Though I still find the crosshairs on Marvel Studios to be a bit misplaced, as if they're the biggest offender of "on-brand" crowd-pleasing in the marketplace (which I don't think they are, at all).

Compare the latest Marvel film to the latest _Fast and the Furious_ film, for example. Unless one is truly against anything in the superhero genre, it should be obvious that Marvel at least _attempts_ to offer more than what some other franchises serve up.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Nov 8, 2019)

I think Marvel is just the biggest target for Scorsese. I get where he's coming from, but movies are expensive these days. If I'm going to take my wife to the theater and easily spend $100, I want to get my money's worth. Not that seeing a Scorsese film in the theater wouldn't be worth it, but for that kind of money I can wait to Netflix it. I think with Marvel movies and the like, they provide a blockbuster experience for the viewer they're not going to get at home. They are designed to rake in box office numbers.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 8, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> Compare the latest Marvel film to the latest _Fast and the Furious_ film, for example. Unless one is truly against anything in the superhero genre, it should be obvious that Marvel at least _attempts_ to offer more than what some other franchises serve up.





J.T. Chris said:


> I think Marvel is just the biggest target for Scorsese. I get where he's coming from, but movies are expensive these days. If I'm going to take my wife to the theater and easily spend $100, I want to get my money's worth. Not that seeing a Scorsese film in the theater wouldn't be worth it, but for that kind of money I can wait to Netflix it. I think with Marvel movies and the like, they provide a blockbuster experience for the viewer they're not going to get at home. They are designed to rake in box office numbers.



I think the criteria people use these days for picking movies to see at the theater generally is vastly different than what it was in the old days. Back then theaters were cheaper, and most people went to actually see movies there (as few had TV's at home and VHS wasn't yet a thing) as well as the news and so on, so basically you either saw it 'at the theater' or you didn't see it at all.

To that degree, Scorsese's argument is sort of generational, in that - as a man pushing eighty - he is part of a generation that thinks of 'cinema' as being this one homogeneous art-form. In his mind, what does well at the theaters roughly lines up with what does well anywhere. That's clearly not true. There's all kinds of movies I watch on Netflix and enjoy very much that I would never bother seeing in a theater. Because it's expensive, because it's a hassle, and - more than anything else - they just aren't the kind of movies that seem to need the big screen. 

For example, when the trailer for _Dunkirk _came out I had to see it at the theater. Not because I'm a super big fan of British war movies or Christopher Nolan, but because it looked interesting and there was just no way an epic war movie was going to be nearly as good on a small screen. Likewise for _Interstellar. _Likewise for _Skyscraper. _Likewise for _Gravity_. Likewise for superhero movies. Watching these played on 50 inches just isn't the same. They need to be big and bold. On the other end of the stick, I could not imagine ever going to see a documentary at a movie theater. Maybe if it was something visually impressive - the Blue Planet or something - but not Michael Moore. I don't necessarily care to see kitchen sink dramas or historical romances or comedy movies at movie theaters, either. I frequently see great movies coming out and immediately think "I'll wait until its on Netflix', not because I don't want to see them but because I don't need to see them in that format. Not for $20 a ticket anyway.


----------



## Sir-KP (Nov 8, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> In what way?



That people love, remember, and addicted to our fictional characters like ecstasy, on top of being widely known.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 9, 2019)

To bring this back to writing, I suppose there are some similarities in the 'depends on the medium' analogy. I'm not big on audiobooks, but if I listen to them it's usually non-fiction - my audiobook collection is like 90% non-fiction. But I almost never _read _non-fiction. I tend to use my e-reader for long novels, but tend to read short stories in paperback format, usually because I like the flexibility and portability of an e-reader but prefer to read on paper so use paper for stuff I know I can read in one-sitting.


----------



## Ibb (Nov 10, 2019)

I'm personally glad to see more people in the film industry speak out against Marvel's garbage. Comic books and superheroes aren't the issue. The Raimi Spider-Man movies, Reeves' Superman, Snyder's Watchmen, the recent Joker and Amazon's The Boys are each of them proof that the medium can be mined for wonderful films of varying intensities. Marvel's issue is Disney's issue, in that to net the widest possible demographic they render their stories into easily digestible brain mush. My friends love the Marvel movies. My girlfriend loves Star Wars. I'm such a good chum that I keep my mouth shut and suffer through the turgid piles of shit each time a new one's released and I'm pulled along, but the absence of anything remotely resonant or relatable to human experience is constant in each one. 

In Infinity War, when is the world actually in trouble? There are no ordinary loved ones clinging to their children, no casual people at the mercy of demigods watching their homes decimated. Instead you have a bunch of buddies in spandex whinging and whining while choppy CGI plays out around them. The Boys has the exact same thing; but it also has a script that realizes how up their own ass these characters actually are. I just saw Far From Home: Peter Parker doesn't seem to pause for even one second and reflect upon the dubious amorality of his dead mentor when toying around with his new insta-kill sunglasses. Hey there, dude I met two days ago; we have to move this crappy script along, so here's my miniature nuke Raybans, use them for good! And, lo and behold and to no one's surprise, this stupid piece of crap is praised right along with the rest.

Aunt May trembling and forcing a twenty dollar bill into Peter's hand has more artistic integrity and value than the entirety of this franchise. It isn't pretentious to loathe these movies for their size and influence. The more people are willing to dump on these flicks without feeling the need to compromise and say, "Well, see, I understand why people like them, what I should actually say is..." the better. If something's so obviously abhorrent and influential I think it's quite all right to criticize it to your heart's content. The last three movies I watched were Shin Godzilla, The Favourite, and Terrence Malick's Badlands. I can distinctly recall dialogue and scenes of perfect directorial ability. Far From Home? A long, ugly blur extending all the way back to Age of Ultron. 

The sooner Disney's crap is gone the better. Hoorah.


----------



## epimetheus (Nov 19, 2019)

Alan Moore has also recently criticised the superhero genre. I think he was harsher than Scorsese , here's an example:



> I think the impact of superheroes on popular culture is both tremendously embarrassing and not a little worrying...



Perhaps his words carry more weight given he writes in the genre.


----------



## KenTR (Nov 19, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> It's funny you mention Interstellar, because that was probably one of the few 'popcorn' movies I have seen in the last few years that I actually felt was brilliant. Good script, fantastic effects, good adherence to science (well, mostly), likeable characters, really strong creative vision and a clear 'idea' as well as lots of action. It's one of the few movies I voluntarily went to see more than once.
> 
> I think part of why I get so impassioned about this shit is because I do actually believe its possible to make a big-screen popcorn movie that's also well made - or at least tolerably interesting. Interstellar is that for me. Another example is the first Independence Day, which in spite of being very silly at times nonetheless had some really mind-blowing moments. Sometimes it happens. Which means when idiotic stuff like _Ant Man _​shows up it's clearly just a lack of giving a crap.



For me, there's a big gap between "well made" and "tolerably interesting", although I think part of the appeal of some popcorn movies is the collective viewing experience of the theatrical audience, which can diminish the need for the film to be interesting in itself. I remember seeing Animal House with a college aged audience as a kid, and while I was too young to understand some of the jokes, the riotous laughter that filled the theatre almost continuously for 90 minutes certainly added to the experience. To a lesser extent, the same can go for scary movies. 

Interstellar was a bit smarter than most popcorn movies are these days, and it's smarts were well camouflaged by it's popcorny aspects--not an easy feat. I think Nolan was intending to make a huge, sweeping epic sci-fi adventure, but it felt a bit too episodic for me. I love a good mindfuck, but there wasn't enough cohesion between the mindfuck and the adventure. You could feel the seams in the writing.

For me, the most important aspect of a film is the writing. Unfortunately, the writing is the biggest casualty of things like budget considerations and of course the director's vision. Nolan wrote Interstellar himself (with his brother, if I'm correct), so he had a bit more control in that department. My problem is that if I'm watching a movie and something in the writing doesn't ring true to me, it takes me out of the movie. I need to trust the writer because, after all, even a popcorn movie is basically just a story.

Dialogue is another problem. One line of bad dialogue ruins it for me. And early on, as McConaughey was preparing to go into space, John Lithgow (as his father, I believe) said, "This world was never big enough for you, was it?"

I found that line inexcusable. It haunted me. I kept cringing, expecting a similar whopper to drop. In fact, as they were leaving Mann's planet, I said aloud "Was that plannet big enough for ya?" Thankfully, I heard someone else chuckle behind me so I knew I wasn't alone.

Luckily, the whole thing with the black hole and his daughter's bookshelves (am I remembering this correctly) made my brain bend in all sorts of weird ways, so that was a redeeming factor. I did buy the blu ray but haven't watched it again yet. 



Irwin said:


> I've never seen Interstellar, but I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the movie, Matthew McConaughey takes his shirt off. I think that's a clause in his contracts. He's right up there as one of the most annoying people in Hollywood. Tom Cruise may be at the top of the list.



I hated McConaughey for years because all he seemed to do were chick flicks and rom coms. After seeing him in TV's True Detective and foul, nasty little films like Killer Joe, I started respecting his work. I think he's a fine actor but an annoying celebrity. Comparing him to Tom Cruise is like comparing a Kobe steak to a Big Mac patty plastered to the back of a urinal.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 19, 2019)

KenTR said:


> For me, there's a big gap between "well made" and "tolerably interesting", although I think part of the appeal of some popcorn movies is the collective viewing experience of the theatrical audience, which can diminish the need for the film to be interesting in itself. I remember seeing Animal House with a college aged audience as a kid, and while I was too young to understand some of the jokes, the riotous laughter that filled the theatre almost continuously for 90 minutes certainly added to the experience. To a lesser extent, the same can go for scary movies.
> 
> Interstellar was a bit smarter than most popcorn movies are these days, and it's smarts were well camouflaged by it's popcorny aspects--not an easy feat. I think Nolan was intending to make a huge, sweeping epic sci-fi adventure, but it felt a bit too episodic for me. I love a good mindfuck, but there wasn't enough cohesion between the mindfuck and the adventure. You could feel the seams in the writing.
> 
> ...



I'm not here to say that Interstellar was flawless - it had some major problems, not least the fact they managed to walk into a NASA base that conveniently happened to be right near where they lived.

I don't think the dialogue was bad. That line doesn't seem problematic? He is a frustrated wannabe astronaut who wanted adventure. Nothing original, but the "planet" line fit. Unless I am missing something...

Look, it's terribly fashionable to dismiss a lot of these movies, and sometimes it's fair, but we should be careful not to be in the habit of being more sensitive to flaws in 'popcorn' movies while excusing the absolutely moronic dialogue that makes up a lot of old 'classics'. An awful lot of old movies, the kind Scorsese probably thinks are just terrific, are poorly written in many respects but they get a pass, for some reason.

Everybody's mileage varies with this stuff, but I can excuse flawed dialogue provided it isn't _too _flawed and provided there is enough intrigue in that concept that it ceases to matter. The science in Interstellar was generally good, or at least credible to a non-scientist, and the visuals were obviously stunning. 

But what took it out of Michael Bay popcorn territory was the concept, which I found to be at the pinnacle of science fiction. I consider it to be the most conceptually ambitious and interesting science fiction movie since 2001: A Space Odyssey and a far better movie in most other respects.


----------



## KenTR (Nov 19, 2019)

That one line struck me as cliched, and not the type of thing a father would say to a son who was about to risk his life in space. But that's me.

I thought of 2001 as well, but never dwelled on it because I thought the comparison was flawed, but seeing it mentioned here leads me to believe I may have been onto something. There was a moment near the end while McConaughey was in the black hole where the camera swiped away from Anne Hathaway's reaction shot. The distortion suggested a sort of mind-bending confusion. I liked that. I felt a little bit that way the first time I saw 2001. It also attempted to transcend the genre. For that reason alone, it earned points even when it failed.

I originally brought up Christopher Nolan because I think that he is a windbag. With the exception if Interstellar, I can't watch his stuff. His second feature, Memento brought him to prominence, and was also one of the more successful arthouse/multiplex crossovers. It had a good, unpleasantly tense story which was rendered impotent, in my opinion, by his insistence on telling it backwards. 

But you're right; Interstellar was ambitious and intelligent. There isn't much cerebral science fiction being filmed these days. The current trend seems to be to just throw in a monster. Or a teenage vampire. Oh hell, why not Adam Sandler?

I have a problem with most older films. If they were made before I was born, I have a hard time connecting to them. Also, studios were churning them out much faster than they are today. People would go see anything. 

Still, I aver that good writing is the backbone of any good film. Filming a sloppy screenplay is like substituting cornmeal for flour in a cake recipe; the yokels won't notice but the connoisseurs will choke on it.


----------



## BornForBurning (Nov 19, 2019)

Marvel movies become more bearable once you realize they are essentially cartoons that have lost their sense of style. They have about the same level of writing as an episodic children's show, just without the cool animation. I agree it's disturbing that the average American is so desperate for something heroic that they'll spend hours watching the movie equivalent of McDonald's, though. I think that's the job of writers nowadays. Bring back real, meaty heroism. Or at least bring back villains that scare people badly enough that they question what the hell they are doing with their lives.


----------



## epimetheus (Nov 20, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I consider it to be the most conceptually ambitious and interesting science fiction movie since 2001: A Space Odyssey and a far better movie in most other respects.



Have you watched Arrival?


----------



## KenTR (Nov 20, 2019)

I liked Arrival. It left me with a lot more to think about than Interstellar did. Sort of an attempt to recreate the old style cerebral science fiction: no action or explosions, just talking and ideas. Having said that, I'm not forgetting the scene where something blew up in the alien ship. I'm forgetting the details but not the fact that as I watched it, the sole action sequence seemed forced and out of place. I'm betting this is because the studio was too frightened to finance a wide release for a film where nothing blew up. The advertising campaign for that film was enormous. I remember seeing the artwork everywhere and thinking "Hell no. I've already seen the last five Independence Day rip-offs." But a friend saw it and told me it was worthwhile. It was. Very, very, VERY good writing. Did you think about why they nicknamed the two aliens Abbott and Costello?


----------



## Fortinno (Nov 21, 2019)

I liked Arrival too. A better ending would have put that film very high up in my book. I don't know what that better ending would have been though. Something not so preachy would do I guess.


----------



## ironpony (Nov 21, 2019)

Superhero and comic book movies have been very mediocre overall lately though for the last few years.  If it was back in 2009, would Marty say this fresh off of The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Watchmen?


----------



## Irwin (Nov 21, 2019)

These superhero movies are just a different genre where it's not the plot or character development that are important; it's the visuals. It's like an amusement park ride more than social commentary, although some do feature the social commentary, but only on a superficial level, and it's more of a gimmick to provide socially redeeming value (as they used to say in jest in some of the 1970s porn movies) than an integral element.

So, it's not that there is artistic loss like we have in music where auto-tune, quantization, synthesizers, drum machines, as well as the use of sampling, have eliminated the the groove and the emotional qualities--where one genre has nearly totally replaced nearly all the others. Good movies can coexist in a world with superhero movies and completely far fetched science fiction movies because no matter how far technology advances and how much technology is integrated into movies, they still need the basic elements of good moviemaking, which are good character development and an interesting plot, and we still have that, although often times, fake-looking computer generated graphics do more to distract than to enhance the experience.


----------



## KenTR (Nov 21, 2019)

Irwin said:


> These superhero movies are just a different genre where it's not the plot or character development that are important..



That pretty much says it all.



Irwin said:


> Good movies can coexist in a world with superhero movies and completely far fetched science fiction movies because no matter how far technology advances and how much technology is integrated into movies, they still need the basic elements of good moviemaking, which are good character development and an interesting plot, and we still have that...



It depends on what you're looking to get out of a film. It's a medium that's a lot like music; what you're seeing in films today is the result of what influenced the filmmakers when they were younger. With no subtlety at all, Quentin Tarantino has made a career of splashing his influences on the screen. In fact, his films started the stampede of generation Xers into film school, and Marvel films are doing the same with millenials. God knows what they'll be coming up with in a few years.

Back in the day, a studio could greenlight a film in the morning, and it would be in pre-production by the afternoon. Today, it's a much slower process. Too many hands in the pot. Financial matters always slow things down, even when they're running smoothly. Add to that the fact that only a fraction of movie houses still exist, and like the films they show, they can't just be simple theatres, they have to be like little amusement parks with lots of lights and shiny surfaces. 

The result is that there's less and less films films being made each year. More and more of them are sequels and rip-offs. Do you think a serious writer with truly good ideas is going to leap at the chance to write Hot Tub Time Machine 4? Sadder still is that like never before, there are thousands of scripts floating around within the film industry, many of them exceptionally good, but less than one percent of them ever get financed. Unless of course they're about full grown men who dress up like animals and fight crime.


----------



## KenTR (Dec 5, 2019)

I hate to bump up this thread only to further derail it, but there was a side discussion about cerebral science fiction concerning films like "Interstellar" and "Arrival".

I just watched "Annihilation" and it fits squarely into that category. The posters here who have enjoyed that kind of stuff might want to check it out. It puts forth some pretty wild ideas.


----------



## Jan1989 (Dec 7, 2019)

As someone with contacts in Hollywood and who understands screenwriting, Martin Scorsese can say what he wants but I doubt it will have an impact beyond a small group. In Hollywood, a process goes into effect when a script is greenlit for production. Normally, it goes through three drafts and a polish. The Producers are paying for everything. Directors and actors are selected. Key scenes are drawn for the entire movie as a black and white comic book called storyboards. Of course, the more complex scenes involve everyone. The Producers usually say, "How much is that scene going to cost me?" The writer might be called in to clarify this or that. Effects people are called in to put a dollar amount on various scenes. The costume and set people are are then called in. It's like putting together a stage play but far more complex.

Movies come in different varieties and are made to draw in different audiences. Art is not some sacred word. By all means, do what you want. No one is stopping you, In Hollywood, in show business, you have to work within a system. That's just the way it is.

"Societal trends" are created. There are companies that advise large businesses. Who knew what impact smart phones would have on people? They did before the first smart phone came out. I choose not to own one. Other people have chosen otherwise.

I suggest avoiding the us versus them mentality. I've seen a few "art films" and regard them as pretentious nonsense.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 7, 2019)

For discussion's sake, I'd like to point out that Marvel's _Avengers: Endgame_ cost $350 million to make. It earned that money back 3 days after being released. From then on, it rocketed toward the $3 billion mark.

Scorsese's _The Irishman_, on the other hand, cost $140 million to make. It's been out for approximately 3 weeks now, and has only earned $6 million back.

Granted, the film suffered from a limited theatrical release, due to its Netflix contract, so I don't know what's going to happen to it in the future. But, at least for now, the film is officially a flop.

(Though, that might be more of an argument about how streaming services like Netflix are hurting filmmakers' wallets, kind of like the argument against Amazon and authors' wallets, which ... is a whole different kind of discussion.)

Also: I found this article about the MCU money-earning machine: https://hbr.org/2019/07/marvels-blockbuster-machine. What I found interesting was the emphasis on _changing the tone_ between each MCU film.

Compare _Winter Soldier_ to _Ant Man_ and you'll notice they feel like completely different films, in terms of style and tone. Compare _Star Wars_ films to each other, however, and you'll notice that they all seem to blend together in feel.

I find the difference in approaches between those two franchises to be quite interesting, in that regard ... :-k


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 8, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> For discussion's sake, I'd like to point out that Marvel's _Avengers: Endgame_ cost $350 million to make. It earned that money back 3 days after being released. From then on, it rocketed toward the $3 billion mark.
> 
> Scorsese's _The Irishman_, on the other hand, cost $140 million to make. It's been out for approximately 3 weeks now, and has only earned $6 million back.
> 
> ...



Netflix seem to have a problem with marketing their original content. I had not heard of The Irishman until (ironically, maybe?) the whole article on which this post is based came up. Had Scorsese not talked shit I wonder if it would have even made as much as $6 million. There are numerous fairly high budget Netflix shows and movies that seem to go mostly nowhere $ wise despite being well-made. 

I don't even know how a Netflix movie can count profitability anyway. I watched the movie and so did everybody else I know, but I don't know anybody who was moved to take on a Netflix subscription solely to watch it. If that six million was solely based on the extremely short theatrical run it seems pretty meaningless. My understanding is the only reason they released it in theaters at all was to qualify for the Oscars.


----------



## Ma'am (Dec 8, 2019)

Biro said:


> ... Now it might be an age thing as most people now are so far removed from reality and the history books totally re-written by the lefties...



Please just don't. Really.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 8, 2019)

Biro said:


> Perhaps it's just me.



Nah, it's not just you. 

When you were young, the older people back then thought everything you liked was junk too.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 8, 2019)

Biro said:


> Have seen very few decent films in years.  Most are dire and hyped off the scale.  A typical example was a much hyped and over rated film ... 'Fury'.   Now it might be an age thing as most people now are so far removed from reality and the history books totally re-written by the lefties.  But nobody has ever explained to me the events in the film where a stationary broken down American badly made and very badly equipped Sherman tank is discovered by hundreds of 'crack' German troops.
> 
> Now German troops especially the 'crack' troops were just as good and just as well equipped as the Allies.  But on discovering a broken down disabled lump of American Iron with only 50mm of armour (in the good places), all these hundreds of crack troops can find to do is stumble in front of the 'forward' pointing machine guns and get blown off the map.



It's such a piss-poor 'argument' anyway, Biro. Have you ever seen most old war movies? In _The Longest Day _they show American soldiers skipping up half of Omaha beach when we all know the entire first wave more or less got shot to shit. In _Where Eagles Dare_ Clint Eastwood literally machine guns something like 120 Nazis single-handedly without a scrape. Most war movies have always been unrealistic popcorn tosh, if you want to say new movies are less historically accurate than old ones you have clearly never seen _​The Great Escape_.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 8, 2019)

Biro said:


> Really I didn't know you were there?



I don't need to have been around in 1965 or whenever you think the halcyon days of movie making were to pull multiple examples from that era of grouchy elders grumbling about 'X going to hell'.

Your perspective is not unique to 2019. Everything from when you were young is better to you...because you were young. Same for me, same for everybody else. 

Constant complaining about young people or 'lefties' being responsible for some grievous decline in culture is one of the more tedious things about being old. Personally, I tell my kids the day I start that shit they have my full permission to push me off the nearest cliff.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 8, 2019)

Biro said:


> No it's not actually as I was referring to the one scene in a much hyped film.  One bad scene or similar can ruin the whole film which did or added to in this film. And I wasn't saying old was better than new.  Just picking out an over hyped film.



Bollocks.



Biro said:


> *Have seen very few decent films in years. Most are dire and hyped off the scale. A typical example was a much hyped and over rated film ... 'Fury'. Now it might be an age thing as most people now are so far removed from reality and the history books totally re-written by the lefties.*



Yeah...that definitely sounds like you were talking about 'just one film'.


----------



## Ma'am (Dec 8, 2019)

Biro said:


> Regards lefties.......I associate then with religious nuts from which ever god they follow.  For some reason they always know the right way and want to impose their idealism on others.   If ever anybody objects then they show the intolerance towards others they always keep banging on about.



I don't think the "lefties" are the religious nuts. Anyway, painting a huge number of people with such a wide brush as to be nonsensical is just that and you are also insulting a huge number of people by doing it. So, again, perhaps you can just knock it off?


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 8, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I don't even know how a Netflix movie can count profitability anyway. I watched the movie and so did everybody else I know, but I don't know anybody who was moved to take on a Netflix subscription solely to watch it. If that six million was solely based on the extremely short theatrical run it seems pretty meaningless. My understanding is the only reason they released it in theaters at all was to qualify for the Oscars.



From what I've read: the big movie chains wanted a full theatrical release (90 days in the theaters), but Netflix wanted the film on their platform immediately (and exclusively).

Scorsese and company went with Netflix, for whatever reason (deciding to take the lump sum offered, instead of banking on box office earnings).

In hindsight, it seems like it was the wrong (financial) decision. :grief: But only time will tell.


Back to the original post: the more I revisit Scorsese's complaint/rant, the more I see it as just a difference of creative opinions. I mean, what exactly does he expect Marvel to do? They have a ravenous fan-base to please, and source material that walks a very specific line, in terms of content and tone.

Their genre also comes with huge production costs—so it makes sense that they'd need to do a lot of polling and pre-audience vetting, to ensure that they aren't making disastrous financial choices.

On the one hand, I appreciate his apparent defense of quality storytelling. On the other hand, I think if he found himself at the helm of an MCU film, he'd likely be stunned by the lukewarm (or even negative) response to the direction that he would probably end up taking things (making it tenser, slower, more conversation-heavy, more power-struggle focused). It simply wouldn't please the target audience.

Different viewers, different wants. Different goals, different needs . . .


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Dec 8, 2019)

I just think a lot of people who talk down the MCU and DCCU don't recognize the profound emotional impact some of these movies have. Lots of people cried during WW's no man's land scene. The hype feeling when Dr. Strange holds up one finger in End Game. When Captain America shows that he's worthy to pick up the hammer. When Captain Marvel breaks free of the computer. And these scenes don't carry emotional weight just because of the attachment to the source material or the craft of those scenes. The movies got us there.

I have watched many Oscar-bait films and felt almost nothing. If the goal of the comic book movies is to elicit emotion, they do that for the kinds of people they are made for.


----------



## BornForBurning (Dec 8, 2019)

> Your perspective is not unique to 2019. Everything from when you were young is better to you...because you were young. Same for me, same for everybody else.


I'm a young person and a lot of us prefer the older stuff, especially in the cinematic realm. I've very little nostalgia for the stuff I grew up with besides the band Sabaton, lol. I've heard a lot of guys in my age group say they hate their generation. Being young now sucks. It's basically about being lazy and inert, as opposed to going out and being crazy. And the almost universal view among the youth who are really into cinema (in my experience) is that modern cinema sucks. This cyclical view of societal evolution where the younger generation always rebels against the older generation is a very recent development. Note I said development, not invention, because it IS a real phenomena, it's just something unique to the last century and a half. I really believe that something very special happened in Hollywood in that mid 70s late 80s period, but that would be a much, much longer post. Suffice to say I think there was a rare meeting of artistic integrity with corporate interests, and that even today the movie industry still largely feeds off of the corpse of those properties produced in that unique period. 
I guess what sort of triggers me about this is the idolization of the will of the youth. Like, I think I make a pretty good writer; I know I'd make a terrible god. The only real mass countercultural movement that I can identify about modern youth culture is the whole gay thing. But even that is humorously enough pretty much universally acclaimed by the very establishment the counterculture is supposed to oppose. Which is probably why the whole 'right-wing' counterculture gained steam for a bit. Both are terrible at actually producing anything of real artistic merit. With a few notable exceptions. The parody band RWDS was very good. The most recent Goatmoon album was also great. And Sam Hyde is a brilliant comedian imo. 
Still, you CAN still find real cool people that just want to be crazy and crack skulls and make cool stuff. If you know where to look. Our local death metal scene is great


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 9, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> I'm a young person and a lot of us prefer the older stuff, especially in the cinematic realm. I've very little nostalgia for the stuff I grew up with besides the band Sabaton, lol. I've heard a lot of guys in my age group say they hate their generation. Being young now sucks. It's basically about being lazy and inert, as opposed to going out and being crazy. And the almost universal view among the youth who are really into cinema (in my experience) is that modern cinema sucks. This cyclical view of societal evolution where the younger generation always rebels against the older generation is a very recent development. Note I said development, not invention, because it IS a real phenomena, it's just something unique to the last century and a half. I really believe that something very special happened in Hollywood in that mid 70s late 80s period, but that would be a much, much longer post. Suffice to say I think there was a rare meeting of artistic integrity with corporate interests, and that even today the movie industry still largely feeds off of the corpse of those properties produced in that unique period.
> I guess what sort of triggers me about this is the idolization of the will of the youth. Like, I think I make a pretty good writer; I know I'd make a terrible god. The only real mass countercultural movement that I can identify about modern youth culture is the whole gay thing. But even that is humorously enough pretty much universally acclaimed by the very establishment the counterculture is supposed to oppose. Which is probably why the whole 'right-wing' counterculture gained steam for a bit. Both are terrible at actually producing anything of real artistic merit. With a few notable exceptions. The parody band RWDS was very good. The most recent Goatmoon album was also great. And Sam Hyde is a brilliant comedian imo.
> Still, you CAN still find real cool people that just want to be crazy and crack skulls and make cool stuff. If you know where to look. Our local death metal scene is great



I think you have the wrong end of the stick...

The point I made isn't whether you, as a young person, currently like old things more than new things. The question is whether you will continue to like -- or even bother about -- new, different things once you are no longer a young person. Because, to you, an old movie -- or old music -- can still be 'new'. Whether it is actually new or not is irrelevant. You will be aware that plenty of young people now do like new movies. Whether all of them do or not doesn't matter: Not all kids in the 1950's liked Jerry Lee Lewis either.

There's a study that was posted awhile back (by Spotify, using their data) which essentially said that once a person hits age 33 they mostly stop listening to new music. There was a kind of bell curve, which teenagers at the top as the ones who are most interested in 'new'. That begins to taper in the mid-twenties and, according to the study, by the time a person is in their mid-thirties they have basically stopped being interested in new artists. Essentially, the study suggests, by the time you get to that approximate age you are more likely to start indulging in the kind of thinking Biro demonstrated, which is that 'people now are [insert dismissive statement]' and 'nothing has been good for [insert time period]' and you stay with what you are comfortable with, with only modest interest in new things.

I'm not saying all older people are like this (they are not) or that people of all ages and backgrounds don't continue to see or enjoy new movies (they obviously do) or anything that can too rigorously be applied to Scorsese's point here, only that a lot of the old versus new debate has to do with changes in the age and mindset of the _person _and often has little ,or nothing, to do with the relative merits of the movie, book, artist, song in question. 

It's really hard to swallow this, to accept our judgments on whatever may originate more from our own changing brains more than from reality. We don't like to think that our opinions may not be fair or reasonable or based on reality. But it's also true, at least if we look historically. Shakespeare, Beethoven, Jazz, non-silent movies, Rock 'n' Roll', color TV, the internet...all of these things have, at some point, been dismissed as ridiculous garbage by the older people of their time even as they were adored by the younger people of their time...and as those younger people became the older people the exact same pattern repeated. 

Which is why I intend on being pushed off that cliff.


----------



## Biro (Dec 9, 2019)

And to clarify.  When I mentioned an 'age thing' I wasn't referring to older being better or better in old days.  I was referring to how as time moves on from an event such as WW2. People (younger folk) lose sense of what it was really like.  For instance we have now well entered the time when younger folk do not have older relatives who were around at such times.  So their knowledge and outlook on a period such as WW2 only comes from whatever source (book or website) they have been taught with.  So their source of info is only as good as the person who wrote it and it may possibly be a newer version.  It could be even a politically correct version which may have no relevance on actual events.  Who knows?

Hollywood is a great example of twisting the truth.  The film about the enigma codes U-571 is a perfect modern example.  People watch that and may think that is factual.  Just the same as hundreds of 'crack' German troops unable to take care of a badly made disabled American tank.

As pointed out older films were just as guilty of truth stretching.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 9, 2019)

Biro said:


> As pointed out older films were just as guilty of truth stretching.



In that case, why is truth something you even expect from movies?


----------



## Biro (Dec 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> In that case, why is truth something you even expect from movies?



I think that when you write you would be certain to make sure all scenes and other writings in your book are good and as correct as possible so your story/work isn't spoiled.

I think the same applies to all films and more so today as they have so many more technical aids to assist them to make the film scenes life like and factual.

Of course there are times when you can't show the effects on human bodies of explosions and bullets.  But I think an example is 'Saving Private Ryan' where they storm the beach and other scenes.   Those scenes were so much different than earlier films and as you point out they didnt just stroll along the beach in reality.   

Getting it right or as far as you can will make a film.  Getting it wrong can destroy a film.  Saying that there are scenes from SPR which are totally incorrect.  You cannot shoot people when  underwater for instance.  But the hell and slaughterhouse of a beach landing I think made people sit up and take notice.

Trying to portray hundreds of crack troops as imbeciles because they are the bad guys just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Dec 9, 2019)

You all do realize that Martin started this whole controversy of real-movies versus the Avengers as a way to drum up press about his upcoming film *The Irishman*...right?
It was all just clever marketing.
He cast an insult by saying that all these super hero movies weren't true cinema (even tho they made a billion dollars opening weekend of EndGame) just to get people talking.
Then right after that he releases his latest movie...and lots of people watched it.
Mission accomplished. You can't buy press like that.


----------



## KenTR (Dec 9, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> I just think a lot of people who talk down the MCU and DCCU don't recognize the profound emotional impact some of these movies have. Lots of people cried during WW's no man's land scene. The hype feeling when Dr. Strange holds up one finger in End Game. When Captain America shows that he's worthy to pick up the hammer. When Captain Marvel breaks free of the computer. And these scenes don't carry emotional weight just because of the attachment to the source material or the craft of those scenes. The movies got us there.
> 
> I have watched many Oscar-bait films and felt almost nothing. If the goal of the comic book movies is to elicit emotion, they do that for the kinds of people they are made for.



If you will allow me a moment of arrogance, I'd say that I don't consider a large swath of the target audience for these films to be particularly sophisticated, at least in cinematic terms. I'll admit that my experience with this stuff stops after Christopher Nolan's two Batman films and the first twenty minutes of "Venom", but judging from what I saw of "Venom", in comparison to the pithy histrionics of (the admittedly well-made) "The Dark Night", I'd say the bar has been significantly lowered. 

Hollywood is no different than any other business in that they provide goods and services for the consumer, and they will try to get away with whatever is fast and cheap. How many new versions of "Batman" or "Spiderman" do we need? They're like the cinematic equivalent if iPhones.

Repeat, repeat, repeat.

I would also say that it's been my impression that the goal of comic book movies is to elicit awe through spectacle. But if you're able to emotionally invest yourself in a man with rubber ears, I say go for it. More power to you. Really, I wish I could relax enough to get into this stuff. I like getting excited over new and upcoming films. But that doesn't happen much lately _because the multiplex is overrun with cheap, easy melodramas about people in spandex fighting an adversity that I can in no way relate to. _That's the bottom line. This kind of entertainment is choking out the movies that I could otherwise be enjoying. As in what Luckyscars said, I rue the days when I could open the newspaper and have a whole variety of experiences to choose from. Now it's a matter of what cereal box has the most hype. I may be resentful, but I'm only human.

Close to a decade ago, one of my favorite novels, "Invisible Monsters" was slated to be made into a movie. But the project fizzled because several of the actresses who were to be involved (as both stars and producers) went on to star in some successful Marvel franchise. What a wild and f**ked up movie that would have been.



Ralph Rotten said:


> You all do realize that Martin started this whole controversy of real-movies versus the Avengers as a way to drum up press about his upcoming film *The Irishman*...right?
> It was all just clever marketing.
> He cast an insult by saying that all these super hero movies weren't true cinema (even tho they made a billion dollars opening weekend of EndGame) just to get people talking.
> Then right after that he releases his latest movie...and lots of people watched it.
> Mission accomplished. You can't buy press like that.



Hmm, that may be true to a point, but like any filmmaker worth his weight in salt, Martin is a true cinephile. I know a couple of these cinephile creatures, and despite being insufferably aggravating at times, their love for cinema is endearing in a cutesy-nerdy kind of way. I think a large part of what he was saying has to do with his regret over what has become of the artistic landscape he not only helped to create, but also served as his first love throughout his life.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 9, 2019)

KenTR said:


> If you will allow me a moment of arrogance, I'd say that I don't consider a large swath of the target audience for these films to be particularly sophisticated, at least in cinematic terms. I'll admit that my experience with this stuff stops after Christopher Nolan's two Batman films and the first twenty minutes of "Venom", but judging from what I saw of "Venom", in comparison to the pithy histrionics of (the admittedly well-made) "The Dark Night", I'd say the bar has been significantly lowered.



_Venom_ is Sony, and _The Dark Knigh_t is Warner Bros. Still superhero movies, absolutely—but not part of the MCU.

I know it seems like splitting hairs here, but the MCU is directly under fire from Scorsese and company, and the MCU does things differently than Sony and Warner (and even the DCEU). Fans of these different franchises can spot the differences at a glance.



			
				KenTR said:
			
		

> How many new versions of "Batman" or "Spiderman" do we need?


Agreed!



			
				KenTR said:
			
		

> Really, I wish I could relax enough to get into this stuff. I like getting excited over new and upcoming films. But that doesn't happen much lately because the multiplex is overrun with cheap, easy melodramas about people in spandex fighting an adversity that I can in no way relate to.


I think it's a matter of taste. There are lot of great movies that I simply have no interest in. _Get Out_ is supposedly a terrific horror film, but I simply have no interest in seeing it. The same goes for whatever the latest New Adult Romantic Comedy is. I'm sure it's great fun for its target audience—but I'm simply not in that category.



			
				KenTR said:
			
		

> I think a large part of what he was saying has to do with his regret over what has become of the artistic landscape he not only helped to create, but also served as his first love throughout his life.


I think that's an accurate description. Though it's not like MCU films are the first to milk the big-spectacle, "theme-parkish" fantasy experience that Scorsese bemoans. Look at _Star Wars_, for example. I'm surprised he's not out there bashing George Lucas, too.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Dec 9, 2019)

KenTR said:


> Hmm, that may be true to a point, but like any filmmaker worth his weight in salt, Martin is a true cinephile. I know a couple of these cinephile creatures, and despite being insufferably aggravating at times, their love for cinema is endearing in a cutesy-nerdy kind of way. I think a large part of what he was saying has to do with his regret over what has become of the artistic landscape he not only helped to create, but also served as his first love throughout his life.




I never said it wasn't his true feelings.
Simply that he made the public stink because it would help him market the new movie.
And obviously it has. The debate got his name back in the mainstream, and introduced him to a whole new age-group of viewers (many of the Avengers fans were too young to have much knowledge of films like Good Fellas.)
This controversy was a perfect way to start some self-sustaining marketing.


----------



## Jan1989 (Dec 9, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I never said it wasn't his true feelings.
> Simply that he made the public stink because it would help him market the new movie.
> And obviously it has. The debate got his name back in the mainstream, and introduced him to a whole new age-group of viewers (many of the Avengers fans were too young to have much knowledge of films like Good Fellas.)
> This controversy was a perfect way to start some self-sustaining marketing.




Are you sure about that? Perhaps he was being sincere. The Irishman is another gangster movie. And Hollywood selects scripts carefully to make money. If anyone wants to read why Netflix did what they did, just follow Variety or Deadline.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Dec 9, 2019)

KenTR said:


> If you will allow me a moment of arrogance, I'd say that I don't consider a large swath of the target audience for these films to be particularly sophisticated, at least in cinematic terms. I'll admit that my experience with this stuff stops after Christopher Nolan's two Batman films and the first twenty minutes of "Venom", but judging from what I saw of "Venom", in comparison to the pithy histrionics of (the admittedly well-made) "The Dark Night", I'd say the bar has been significantly lowered.



Could you name one or two movies that did well in the box office, during the last 20 years, that were made for smart and sophisticated people?


----------



## KenTR (Dec 9, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> Could you name one or two movies that did well in the box office, during the last 20 years, that were made for smart and sophisticated people?



Of course not. Smart and sophisticated people don't even watch movies.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 9, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> Could you name one or two movies that did well in the box office, during the last 20 years, that were made for smart and sophisticated people?



Interstellar.
American Beauty.
The Matrix.
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind.
Gone Girl.
Flightplan.
Black Swan.


----------



## Biro (Dec 10, 2019)

KenTR said:


> Of course not. Smart and sophisticated people don't even watch movies.



When I watch a film I want to be entertained.  

What do smart and sophisticated people watch?   I guess I will never know.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Dec 10, 2019)

I like those movies, at least the ones I've seen, but Interstellar was dumb as hell, and The Matrix and American Beauty didn't really give me anything to think about. I liked Black Swan the most, I guess, but it still didn't make me feel much, not even 10% of Wonder Woman.

I guess I liked Donnie Darko, The Ninth Gate, and The Fountain as more artistic movies, but only because they had things that spoke to me on a personal level. I still don't think there was much subtext worth thinking about, other than in The Fountain where it isn't clear what the different scenes are (is the future just a new chapter in the book, or is it the literal future with this guy living on without his wife?). But that's not even subtext really, it's just not clear.

Wonder Woman gave me more to think about than any of the movies on the above list, because I wondered WHY I felt so much when she steps into no man's land.




[video=youtube;pJCgeOAKXyg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJCgeOAKXyg[/video]

Interstellar actually started to make me a little mad. It gave me that jumping the shark feeling.

Anyway, I think I know why I like Superheroes better than Oscar-bait, and it’s mostly that the iconic images are standins for things I feel, and removed enough that I can relax and feel it. I used to do non emergency medical transport and dealt with psychiatric patients. I’ve had psychiatric issues. I’ve taken care of people in such physical pain that it made thumb screws look easy, and I have guilt for not breaking protocol and doping them up more when I could have. 

I just can’t, and don’t want to, buy into Hollywood pain. It’s corny to me. Watching dude go crazy in fight club is a hoot, but it’s dumb. Watching him burn his hand is funny, but it’s not accurate, and it wouldn’t be entertaining if it was.

Wonder Woman wants to break the rules and help people. There were times I did and times I didn’t, so it speaks to me, but it doesn’t make me stare into some uncanny valley of suffering.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 10, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> I like those movies, at least the ones I've seen, but Interstellar was dumb as hell, and The Matrix and American Beauty didn't really give me anything to think about. I liked Black Swan the most, I guess, but it still didn't make me feel much, not even 10% of Wonder Woman.
> 
> I guess I liked Donnie Darko, The Ninth Gate, and The Fountain as more artistic movies, but only because they had things that spoke to me on a personal level. I still don't think there was much subtext worth thinking about, other than in The Fountain where it isn't clear what the different scenes are (is the future just a new chapter in the book, or is it the literal future with this guy living on without his wife?). But that's not even subtext really, it's just not clear.
> 
> ...



What was dumb about Interstellar?


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 10, 2019)

British director Ken Loach (basically unknown in the US, but IMO one of the best directors of all time) has an interesting variation on Scorsese's view. Skip to 2:17 in the below:

[video=youtube;ifvqcfaZtxY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifvqcfaZtxY[/video]

I think Loach basically makes Scorsese's argument with a bit more finesse. His view isn't that they should not exist, he begins by saying cinema should be as varied as the average library. 

His point with superhero movies is not that they are inherently bad but that the manner in which they are produced is analogous to creation of a commodity, like fast food: They are designed by corporate bodies to make money more than to forward an artistic idea, as outlets of a creative need on the part of their creator(s). 

I just don't think there's any way of arguing against that. Sure, it could apply to a lot of different movies (Disney remakes and new incarnations of Star Wars springs to mind) but Marvel and their ilk probably represent the summit of that capitalism-on-steroids approach to 'art'. 

It's sort of a separate issue to whether the movies themselves are bad or not, as has been pointed out in this thread there are good and bad superhero movies (just as there are good and bad Scorsese, Coppola and Loach movies). So perhaps we are twisting Scorsese a little bit by assuming that was what he meant. Scorsese did not, as far as I know, say "all Marvel movies are crap" or anything like that. What he said is they are "not cinema". 

Which begs the question: What _is _cinema? I think it's hard to define but something we know when we see it. Something can be watchable and still be "not cinema", just like a McDonald's can be a place with tables and chairs where you eat and still not be "a restaurant" -- nobody considers a McDonalds a 'real restaurant'. What we are doing when we make these mental distinctions is separating the spiritual, the essential, the idea-driven from the concrete, the commercial, the legal classification. McDonalds is legally classified as a restaurant no different to the finest steakhouse but nobody thinks of it that way.

Obviously a Marvel movie is 'cinema' as defined by the cut-and-dry of the English language -- they are audio/visual fictions that take place on a big screen -- but I don't think that was what Scorsese was talking about. We don't really have a word to separate the two things and I think people have rather run to the judgment that it was just another crabby old baby-boomer not liking special effects and explosions. When, actually, I believe Scorsese was trying to draw a distinction between cinema as an artform and cinema as a commercial exercise and to lament the decline of the former due to the monopoly of the latter. To that extent, he's absolutely right, no?


----------



## Newman (Dec 10, 2019)

J.J. Maxx said:


> Martin Scorsese, one of the best filmmakers and storytellers of a generation, was called out for saying the current wave of Marvel movies were, in his words, 'not cinema'. In a new opinion article in the New York Times, he clarifies his statement and expounds on the state of cinema as a whole.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html
> 
> ...



Also great PR to get people talking about his latest movie.


----------



## Biro (Dec 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> British director Ken Loach (basically unknown in the US, but IMO one of the best directors of all time)



That depends on whether you want to sit through 90 minutes of propaganda..........usually anti-British.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I believe Scorsese was trying to draw a distinction between cinema as an artform and cinema as a commercial exercise and to lament the decline of the former due to the monopoly of the latter. To that extent, he's absolutely right, no?



I think that's ultimately what he was saying, yes. And in the broad scope, I completely agree with him. Though I also feel that he's painting a large and varied situation with a singular, flat brush.

For example, many of the writers and directors who've worked for Marvel are comic writers and/or comic lovers themselves. To read Scorsese's complaint, you'd think they're all just in it for the money, seeking profits from a genre that they couldn't care less about. The truth of the matter, however, is obviously more individualized and nuanced. Watch some of the interviews given by those involved in the creative aspects of MCU films, and it's obvious there's a passion for the source material that goes deeper than mere promotional enthusiasm.

His argument would hold more weight, for me, had it been directed at a franchise like the _Fast and the Furious_, where character integrity was sacrificed for the sake of spectacle (see: underground street racers suddenly becoming talented at hand-to-hand combat and high-stakes espionage with no apparent explanation whatsoever, other than "because the plot demands it"). :grief:


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Dec 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> What was dumb about Interstellar?



It was marketed itself as hard science fiction, but it fudged science whenever it needed to, which disappointed me. Maybe I would have liked it better if I thought it was a space opera when I went to see it.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 10, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> The truth of the matter, however, is obviously more individualized and nuanced. Watch some of the interviews given by those involved in the creative aspects of MCU films, and it's obvious there's a passion for the source material that goes deeper than mere promotional enthusiasm.



Bit the question then becomes to what extent is that passion, which I agree undoubtedly exists, allowed to roam free? How much creative control do those passionate people actually have over the direction of the movies?

See, when I watch a Scorsese movie I get a distinct sense he was allowed to fully execute on every aspect of his vision. I can see his fingers in every pie. I do not get that sense with Marvel, I don’t get it with Star Wars either. When I watch the new Star Wars stuff it feels like many of the scenes are constructed according to a brief. Baby Yoda, etc.

I feel it is very unlikely whoever is making these movies, regardless of how passionate they are about the material and how hard they work creatively, are still unbound to what a marketing department says is needed. Do we imagine George Lucas back in the seventies would have introduced baby yoda? I don’t believe it. 

It’s an obvious play for mainstream appeal, you can practically smell the plush toys being manufactured in the Vietnamese Disney factory as you watch it. Whether it worked or not, whether it was artistically interesting or not, isn’t exactly relevant. It’s not about the idea, it’s not even about the outcome, it’s about the motive and process by which these things are being made and the cynical role of marketing that infects the directive under which genuinely creative people must labor.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 10, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> It was marketed itself as hard science fiction, but it fudged science whenever it needed to, which disappointed me. Maybe I would have liked it better if I thought it was a space opera when I went to see it.



What science did it fudge? I mean, it is fiction, there is license, but numerous high profile scientists have said it was on the whole very accurate...


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Bit the question then becomes to what extent is that passion, which I agree undoubtedly exists, allowed to roam free? How much creative control do those passionate people actually have over the direction of the movies?
> 
> See, when I watch a Scorsese movie I get a distinct sense he was allowed to fully execute on every aspect of his vision. I can see his fingers in every pie. I do not get that sense with Marvel, I don’t get it with Star Wars either. When I watch the new Star Wars stuff it feels like many of the scenes are constructed according to a brief. Baby Yoda, etc.
> 
> ...



I agree on the role that marketing plays when it comes to big-budget franchise films—it's kind of a necessity, when producers are being asked to shell out hundreds of millions. They want to be assured that they aren't going to lose on such a huge investment.

Though, I disagree with you on the cynical nature of it. Such a label brings to mind studio execs who resemble greedy, mustache-twirling villains, which (at least in the case of Marvel) I don't believe to be true.

Case in point: check out this 9-minute interview with Jon Favreau. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyuPCHuPHGY) Writer/director/producer of both Marvel films and Star Wars entities (like _The Mandalorian_). You can tell he's passionate about storytelling, about various mediums, and about delivering emotional experiences. In the final 3 minutes, especially, he addresses some of what we're talking about on this thread: Scorsese's complaints, and the way one has to approach huge-budget movies as a "product" that needs to sell well, rather than simply a film one wants to create.

Clearly he's pulling a lot of strings all over the place, but I believe his creativity comes from a positive direction, much like James Cameron in his obsessive desire to constantly push the bar higher.

Do I think there's an aspect of commercialization and greed that goes into these big franchises? Sure. I just don't think Marvel is tremendously guilty of it. Not nearly as much as other franchises, anyway. I'd peg Marvel as more interested in _fan-pleasing_, rather than _market-pleasing_, for the most part. (Fortunately for them, fan-pleasing seems to translate _into_ market-pleasing, so it's kind of a win-win.)

Granted, if we're aiming for more cinematic merit, then I'd definitely tip my hat in Scorsese's direction. But if we're aiming for a more cinematic _experience_, then I'd personally have to say that Marvel takes the cake.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Dec 10, 2019)

Here is a random buzz feed article. There were easy to find better ones when the movie was new.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/astrokatie/things-that-happen-in-interstellar-ranked-by-science


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 11, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> Here is a random buzz feed article. There were easy to find better ones when the movie was new.
> 
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/astrokatie/things-that-happen-in-interstellar-ranked-by-science



Most of those are 'verdict' somewhere between speculatively possible and plausible. The ice clouds were definitely a big WTF but I definitely would push back on claims most of the rest was entirely unscientific or approaching a 'space opera'. Your mileage may vary, certainly I am no scientist, but it didn't feel dumb.

 Neil Degrasse Tyson has some good perspective on this.

[video=youtube;l7tV7v71k-I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7tV7v71k-I&amp;t=705s[/video]


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 11, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> I agree on the role that marketing plays when it comes to big-budget franchise films—it's kind of a necessity, when producers are being asked to shell out hundreds of millions. They want to be assured that they aren't going to lose on such a huge investment.
> 
> Though, I disagree with you on the cynical nature of it. Such a label brings to mind studio execs who resemble greedy, mustache-twirling villains, which (at least in the case of Marvel) I don't believe to be true.
> 
> ...



I don't completely buy that argument. There are plenty of successful movies that have historically managed to rely on one person's creative vision (or maybe a maximum of two people...) and still be extremely profitable without the need to incorporate vast amount of market research into the product.

A director like Kubrick comes to mind. His movies managed to bridge the gap between popcorn gratification and artistic merit pretty consistently and I am not aware he was ever put on any kind of leash for what he created. Scorsese, Tarantino, Coppola, the Coen Brothers, even Spielberg...these are all directors who have a pretty firm track record of having strong artistic signatures and visions while being endlessly bankable. 

So, the question is not whether these guys' movies make money -- they do -- but whether they make as much as those who create Marvel, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, etc. 

The obvious answer there is, no, nowhere close. What we have here, then, is a choice not between profit or loss but a choice between profit and huge profit. To me, that is cynical and is a matter of greed. 

More importantly, it's a matter of discomfort with taking any kind of risk at all. I think it's fairly clear Disney and Marvel are not interested in taking risks. Nor, of course, should they be. I get it, it's a business. But I also get the complaint that the absence of real risk (as opposed to pretend risks, which would be something like having a black superhero I guess) means these lack an artistic edge. 



> I'd peg Marvel as more interested in _fan-pleasing_, rather than _market-pleasing_, for the most part. (Fortunately for them, fan-pleasing seems to translate _into_ market-pleasing, so it's kind of a win-win.)
> 
> Granted, if we're aiming for more cinematic merit, then I'd definitely tip my hat in Scorsese's direction. But if we're aiming for a more cinematic _experience_, then I'd personally have to say that Marvel takes the cake.



It's an interesting point, Kyle. I'm not sure I grasp the difference between fan-pleasing and market-pleasing given the fans are the market for these movies.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Dec 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Most of those are 'verdict' somewhere between speculatively possible and plausible. The ice clouds were definitely a big WTF but I definitely would push back on claims most of the rest was entirely unscientific or approaching a 'space opera'. Your mileage may vary, certainly I am no scientist, but it didn't feel dumb.
> 
> Neil Degrasse Tyson has some good perspective on this.
> 
> [video=youtube;l7tV7v71k-I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7tV7v71k-I&amp;t=705s[/video]



the part of the movie that I didn’t buy at the time, while I was watching, was when they went to the tide planet. There was no reason for them to be surprised by the time dilation, and because of that, what good was it to them? Then, the ship was maintained by this one guy for years with nothing failing that he couldn’t fix alone.

that element was much worse than the wired bookshelf message


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I don't completely buy that argument. There are plenty of successful movies that have historically managed to rely on one person's creative vision (or maybe a maximum of two people...) and still be extremely profitable without the need to incorporate vast amount of market research into the product.
> 
> A director like Kubrick comes to mind. His movies managed to bridge the gap between popcorn gratification and artistic merit pretty consistently and I am not aware he was ever put on any kind of leash for what he created. Scorsese, Tarantino, Coppola, the Coen Brothers, even Spielberg...these are all directors who have a pretty firm track record of having strong artistic signatures and visions while being endlessly bankable.
> 
> ...



I still think _greed_ is an iffy word in Marvel's case, but overall I agree with your point. There's definitely a business approach to big franchise films that can't be ignored. Case in point: Kevin Feige, head of Marvel Studios, still has to report to Disney higher-ups to get approval for all the MCU's creative decisions. And I imagine, in those conversations, the risk that you mention is likely a big talking point.

Kind of like the character Sterling, from Disney's own _Cars 3_, who acts as Lightning's financier. Sterling is averse to risk and doesn't want Lightning to do anything that might "hurt the brand" in terms of profits, and Lightning has to literally beg him to race the way he wants. I imagine the Pixar writers were directly making fun of the Disney execs who they themselves must report to—a sort of playful jab at their bosses, in animated form.

To bring up another point: Spielberg kind of toes the line between both worlds, being lauded as a visionary director on the one hand, while acting as the executive producer of the _Jurassic Park_ franchise on the other. I imagine, if he were part of the conversation, he'd have some interesting insights from both sides of the argument.



			
				luckyscars said:
			
		

> It's an interesting point, Kyle. I'm not sure I grasp the difference between fan-pleasing and market-pleasing given the fans are the market for these movies.



Fan-pleasing = Marvel throwing in that scene where each of the Avengers tries to lift Thor's hammer. The scene serves no purpose in the film, other than to be there for fans to geek out over. Or the countless on-screen fights between superheroes, to playfully address the "who would win a fight between …?" question that superhero fans love to debate over.

Market-pleasing = Universal Pictures taking the underground street racers from the _Fast and the Furious_ and turning them into shoot-em-up, Mission-Impossible-esque action heroes instead of just "racers", simply to tick more market boxes and grab a larger target audience.


----------



## InkVains (Dec 11, 2019)

I love the article! It makes me ponder on all the points made. I will say that I honestly enjoy certain movies that are considered "cinema fast food" but I also agree that writing has become quite stale in a lot of movies (especially ones that claim to be new ideas but are just rehashes of very old stories). Also, I absolutely agree with @luckyscars points.


----------



## Irwin (Dec 11, 2019)

We watched The Aviator last night. I'd have to say, that was one of Scorsese's best films. That crash sequence was pretty amazing. None of it looked animated. I don't know to what extent or if any of it was. It seems like many directors these days don't even care if the animation action looks fake as hell from all the computer graphics.


----------



## KenTR (Dec 11, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> It was marketed itself as hard science fiction, but it fudged science whenever it needed to, which disappointed me. Maybe I would have liked it better if I thought it was a space opera when I went to see it.



Well it _is_ science *fiction*.

Any film, sci-fi or not can be fact checked to death. Zaps the fun right out of it.


----------



## JohnCalliganWrites (Dec 11, 2019)

KenTR said:


> Well it _is_ science *fiction*.
> 
> Any film, sci-fi or not can be fact checked to death. Zaps the fun right out of it.



There are different kinds of sf. If something is billed as hard sf, or hard sf with some fantastical element, then I kinda expect the science that regular people know to be correct, especially if the characters in the show are experts.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 11, 2019)

JohnCalliganWrites said:


> There are different kinds of sf. If something is billed as hard sf, or hard sf with some fantastical element, then I kinda expect the science that regular people know to be correct, especially if the characters in the show are experts.



I could well be wrong, but I am not aware Nolan & Co ever billed it as 'hard SF'. 

I tend to find very few sensible writers or filmmakers ever describe their own work as 'hard SF' because doing that immediately sets you up for this kind of thing. It's like self-describing something as a 'heartbreaking romance', you always get some people somewhere who will say "well MY heart wasn't broken'. It's sort of setting yourself up for mockery through the insertion of unnecessary superlatives. 

I certainly didn't go see it under the premise I was going to see something totally scientifically accurate. I can see how maybe that's important to some people (i.e Nerd-a-zoids) but I just thought it looked like a cool spacey movie with a good cast. The fact it seemed quite realistic and had some topical themes, at least compared to Star Wars, etc, was a nice bonus.

But I digress. I realize (retrospectively) that the hype around it was for a hard SF movie, and to that degree of course I can agree about the flaws. Ice clouds are a problem. Falling through a black hole and not dying? Well yeah, that's a big problem in a 'hard SF' movie. But the basis for it and many of the concepts were unarguably based on sound science (at least as sound as theoretical physics can be) and then you had a touch of whimsical fantasy with the 'ghosts' and shit and I actually think that's exactly how good science fiction should be. It is fiction, license is reasonable, imagination and fun is part of it. If I want perfect science in a movie, I'll watch a documentary. 

Incidentally, there are just as many mistakes in almost every hard science fiction book and movie. In 2001: A Space Odyssey -- written by Arthur C. Clarke who was nothing if not a 'hard SF writer' and directed by Stanley Kubrick who was nothing if not anal about details -- I vividly remember a scene in which an astronaut takes a deep breath before entering the vacuum of space unprotected, which in reality would shred his lungs as the air expanded in the extremely low pressure, sending fatal air bubbles into his bloodstream. Secondly, people are using phone booths on the moon -- uhh? Thirdly, HAL is really a very shitty computer for something 'futuristic' (doesn't even have Angry Birds) and, fourthly and the biggest 'inaccuracy' of all, of course, is that the movie was set in 2001 and none of it is even close to happening as we go into 2020. So in those respects it's a fairly dumb movie too, right? Well of course not. It's genius. It's just imperfect, like every piece of writing ever.


----------



## epimetheus (Dec 12, 2019)

KenTR said:


> I hate to bump up this thread only to further derail it, but there was a side discussion about cerebral science fiction concerning films like "Interstellar" and "Arrival".
> 
> I just watched "Annihilation" and it fits squarely into that category. The posters here who have enjoyed that kind of stuff might want to check it out. It puts forth some pretty wild ideas.



Good call. I also like the term cerebral sci-fi. I wouldn't class Annihilation as hard sci-fi, too many technobabble and vagaries, but it certainly got you thinking. Added the books to my read list too. Films tend to struggle executing hard sci-fi compared to books - i think that's an artefact of the medium: they have less space to explore the details.


----------

