Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

Mark Hamill

Tony EH wrote: »

The guys who made 'Taxi Driver', 'Apocalypse Now' and 'I, Daniel Blake' need to up their game and make films as "good" as Marvel movies.

Maybe they need to make films as good for showing in a cinema as Marvel do?

What I mean is that cinema competes with just watching things at home. Back in the time of Taxi Driver, 1975, there was no competition. Watching things at home meant waiting for years for the movie to come to TV, and a top of the range TV (25 inch CRT screen) could cost about nearly $750 dollars in 1975 money.
Nowadays, movies are released to buy much quicker and that $750 dollars would be worth about $3500, that could get you a 75 inch 4k tv, a cinematic 4 speaker soundbar system and your own reclining sofa.

Cinema is changing, not really driven by the likes of the MCU or other CG laden blockbusters, they are the answer to it. It is driven by a public who are far more comfortable to watch movies at home.
How many posts and threads have there been from posters complaining about their cinema going experience? About noisy eaters, distracting phone use and the like? A big blockbuster, a load comedy or a jump scare horror can be heavily supported by a group viewing (and in general are not quite as effected by others being as noisy/distracting), but a thoughtful or quiet and intense drama can loose a lot with the wrong type of neighbors.

Tired Gardener

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe they need to make films as good for showing in a cinema as Marvel do?

What I mean is that cinema competes with just watching things at home. Back in the time of Taxi Driver, 1975, there was no competition. Watching things at home meant waiting for years for the movie to come to TV, and a top of the range TV (25 inch CRT screen) could cost about nearly $750 dollars in 1975 money.
Nowadays, movies are released to buy much quicker and that $750 dollars would be worth about $3500, that could get you a 75 inch 4k tv, a cinematic 4 speaker soundbar system and your own reclining sofa.

Cinema is changing, not really driven by the likes of the MCU or other CG laden blockbusters, they are the answer to it. It is driven by a public who are far more comfortable to watch movies at home.
How many posts and threads have there been from posters complaining about their cinema going experience? About noisy eaters, distracting phone use and the like? A big blockbuster, a load comedy or a jump scare horror can be heavily supported by a group viewing (and in general are not quite as effected by others being as noisy/distracting), but a thoughtful or quiet and intense drama can loose a lot with the wrong type of neighbors.

That is a very good point, maybe Cinema is going to morph into a place where only CGI blockbusters and jump scare films are the films on offer. Due to the ease of home Cinema, however that being said, if production companies aren't willing to fund the more quiet intense dramas, they may become a thing of the past. That is a worry, especially with how big directors are having to go to streaming companies to finance their films. With Disney+ just around the corner and Netflix having $12.45 billion debt, it isn't looking to good for the variety of films that are going to be available.

Mark Hamill

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I love Sci-fi and Fantasy... so much so that I used to work for Games Workshop.

What I don't like is the growing trend of reliance on CGI in place of good story telling. Modern cinema is now more about the spectacle and not the story. For example I'm not a fan of Comic books, yet I really enjoyed Christopher Nolan's Batman films, and the recent The Joker film. Yet I find Marvel/DC to be utter boring, as the story is formulaic at best.

Spectacle has always been used to sell movies, this is nothing new. There are plenty of modern CG blockbusters that are muck, but there have always been spectacle movies in every decade that have been muck because their main selling point was their technology rather than the whole movie in general.
There are rubbish special effects and 3D ridden movies going back to the 50s that nobody remembers because they are rubbish, and this gives them the false idea that they never existed.

Tired Gardener wrote: »

And Aliens, those where in the 90's. They came out long after the release of the films. There weren't any McDonald's Aliens/RoboCop Happy Meals, no RoboCop tooth brush, no Aliens single bedding.

There was a kids cartoon of the franchise that was toned down to be suitable for kids that had the usual toys. This was due to license holders trying to milk out more money from their product... they saw how lucrative Star Wars and Star Trek toys and other paraphernalia were... looked at their 18 rates film franchise and wanted a piece of that money. So they made the cartoons.

It may seem similar on the surface, but it is a bit of a jump in logic to suggest what you are trying to insinuate.

The robocop cartoon came out in 1988, the year after the film.
The jump in logic is yours, that because some merchandise is advertised to kids that the inciting product must itself be for kids (or specifically and only for kids).

Mark Hamill

Tired Gardener wrote: »

That is a very good point, maybe Cinema is going to morph into a place where only CGI blockbusters and jump scare films are the films on offer. Due to the ease of home Cinema, however that being said, if production companies aren't willing to fund the more quiet intense dramas, they may become a thing of the past. That is a worry, especially with how big directors are having to go to streaming companies to finance their films. With Disney+ just around the corner and Netflix having $12.45 billion debt, it isn't looking to good for the variety of films that are going to be available.

I do agree with what you say here.
I don't want any non-big-budget-type of movie to disappear, even though I'm fine with them not getting cinema exposure. I don't think that making them on streaming services is in any way a negative, complaining about having no other choice but to do so just seems like arrogance and luddism to me from these directors.
I don't see the loss with big directors having their films maybe on a big screen just for festivals, whilst most people watch them on streaming services on their tvs. Because that is how the majority of people today have seen these big directors famous older films - not many people today have seen the likes of Taxi Driver or Goodfellas or the Godfather in an actual cinema and those same people still manage to love them and hold them up the pinnacle of movies and movie-making regardless.

Tired Gardener

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Spectacle has always been used to sell movies, this is nothing new. There are plenty of modern CG blockbusters that are muck, but there have always been spectacle movies in every decade that have been muck because their main selling point was their technology rather than the whole movie in general.
There are rubbish special effects and 3D ridden movies going back to the 50s that nobody remembers because they are rubbish, and this gives them the false idea that they never existed.


The robocop cartoon came out in 1988, the year after the film.
The jump in logic is yours, that because some merchandise is advertised to kids that the inciting product must itself be for kids (or specifically and only for kids).

If you read one of my earlier posts on this thread I did mention how some films of the 90's relied on their CGI as a selling point, and as such have aged badly and been mostly forgotten... I even named one, Flubber. So yes, that is a long trend. However that isn't to say that it is ok, why can't films have both spectacular visuals and a compelling story? Is it too much to ask. The Marvel films are very samey, seen one and you've pretty much seen them all, as they follow a the same formula. It is lazy and makes for bad films. Sure they are popular now, but in 20 years time are people going to want to watch them again? I highly doubt people will, other than the fandom.

I was referring to the Aliens toy cash I s that came out on the 90's as a way to point out that your observation isn't just limited to RoboCop... there were also Terminator toys. Also again, this is because the companies who owned the IP and rights wanted a slice of the toy tie ins they saw that were popular at the time. So they toned down their IP to market it towards kids.

Now we see the Marvel films doing the same, as the plots are formulaic and cover simple concepts a kid can easily follow them and not feel out of their depth. Then add in the bewildering glut of merchandise that is aimed and marketed towards kids. Yes, these are kids films, that are enjoyed by adults. That doesn't mean they are films marketed towards adults, the topics and themes covered in them are not adult.

Now compare say Avengers Age of Ultron to RoboCop... one is clearly a film that is not suitable for kids, it wasn't scripted, filmed, or made with kids in mind. The other was and came complete with the merchandise. I hope you can see the difference.

johnny_ultimate

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't want any non-big-budget-type of movie to disappear, even though I'm fine with them not getting cinema exposure.

While I fully accept I’m in a minority here, this sort of comment truly breaks my heart. For me, getting to see a slow, considered, aesthetically complex film like Portrait of a Lady on Fire in a cinema is a completely different and superior experience than trying to immerse oneself in it at home (albeit as someone without the benefit of a good home cinema system and who lives near good cinemas). I fully acknowledge and respect everyone isn’t the same, and open myself to accusations of elitism. But honestly MCU films are just empty calories for me on a cinema trip - it’s almost the complete opposite sort of films that typically really get under my skin on a big screen and justify the trip.

manbitesdog

Tired Gardener wrote: »

And Aliens, those where in the 90's. They came out long after the release of the films. There weren't any McDonald's Aliens/RoboCop Happy Meals, no RoboCop tooth brush, no Aliens single bedding.

There was a kids cartoon of the franchise that was toned down to be suitable for kids that had the usual toys. This was due to license holders trying to milk out more money from their product... they saw how lucrative Star Wars and Star Trek toys and other paraphernalia were... looked at their 18 rates film franchise and wanted a piece of that money. So they made the cartoons.

Just an aside, but Kenner, of original Stars Wars action figures fame, were set to release action figures based on the original Alien movie back around 79/80. They designed a full range, but they never came out (I think one based on the alien itself might have done.) The moulds were dusted off in recent years and used to create the ReAction line which is aimed at collectors, but despite being an adult rated sci fi horror, Alien almost had a range of licensed children’s toys.

El Duda

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

While I fully accept I’m in a minority here, this sort of comment truly breaks my heart. For me, getting to see a slow, considered, aesthetically complex film like Portrait of a Lady on Fire in a cinema is a completely different and superior experience than trying to immerse oneself in it at home (albeit as someone without the benefit of a good home cinema system and who lives near good cinemas). I fully acknowledge and respect everyone isn’t the same, and open myself to accusations of elitism. But honestly MCU films are just empty calories for me on a cinema trip - it’s almost the complete opposite sort of films that typically really get under my skin on a big screen and justify the trip.

Completely agree.



The best cinema experience i've had for a long time was You Were Never Really Here. It was phenomenal and the cinema experience really accentuated everything about it. The sound design was incredible.


That is an experience that won't ever be replicated at home.

Tired Gardener

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

While I fully accept I’m in a minority here, this sort of comment truly breaks my heart. For me, getting to see a slow, considered, aesthetically complex film like Portrait of a Lady on Fire in a cinema is a completely different and superior experience than trying to immerse oneself in it at home (albeit as someone without the benefit of a good home cinema system and who lives near good cinemas). I fully acknowledge and respect everyone isn’t the same, and open myself to accusations of elitism. But honestly MCU films are just empty calories for me on a cinema trip - it’s almost the complete opposite sort of films that typically really get under my skin on a big screen and justify the trip.

You aren't alone in thinking this. Best Cinematic experience of my life was going to watch Blue Ruin in the Cinema, it wasn't an independent cinema either, which for such a small independent film was a pleasant surprise.

I'd feel sorry for any generation growing up who don't have access to the full scope and variety that film has to offer.

Greyfox

Tired Gardener wrote: »

All the cheap plastic toys, single bedding, kids happy meals, and other merchandise that are released along side the cinema release disprove your argument.

Nonsense. You'll find theirs a difference between the people who make films and the people who work in marketing. The lord of the rings wasnt just for kids and look at the merchandise, all because the marketing people knew the extra money was there. Superhero films are made for both adults and kids, if they werent they wouldnt be making over a billion dollars/Euro. Another example is game of thrones which has lots of merchandise and is aimed at adults.

Tony EH wrote: »

The guys who made 'Taxi Driver', 'Apocalypse Now' and 'I, Daniel Blake' need to up their game and make films as "good" as Marvel movies.

They can't get the finance. That's the point that these directors are making. The 'franchises' are drowning everything else.

No, they just need to make films as good as Taxi Driver again but there not capable of that any more. When they do get finance the films they are making are not good enough. It would seem now as though great writing is the domain of TV shows

pixelburp

Now here, I don't think it's wildly insulting or outrageous to say that the MCU & its ilk are aimed at children - they just so happen to be aimed at adults too. It's the old "Family friendly" label that invariably dogs these kind of franchises, and subsequently these kind of conversations. The predominant catalogue of Pixar is a living testament to the fact you can make ostensible "children's movies" that adults can not only watch - but openly champion as legitimate Great Films.

And in any case, plain fact is, the majority of our cherished comicbook characters started life very much as disposable, badly written & illustrated children's entertainment. It just so happened that when the Golden Age kids grew into angsty adults that the medium started to itself evolve and "mature". It's not without reason that it was during the 70s and 80s we saw the Millers, Moores et al bringing some complexity (albeit the grimdark adolescence in the case of the former name); they were the generation that grew up reading that rubbish, and wanted to make them more than pulp fiction.

But at their root? They're daft-as-brush stories featuring Kite Man, the Calendar King, Ant-Man, and so on. Except maybe those early Wonder Woman that in retrospect were obvious nods towards William Moulton Marston's interest in bondage :pac: How that every got past the censors I'll never know.

Tired Gardener

pixelburp wrote: »

Now here, I don't think it's wildly insulting or outrageous to say that the MCU & its ilk are aimed at children - they just so happen to be aimed at adults too. It's the old "Family friendly" label that invariably dogs these kind of franchises, and subsequently these kind of conversations. The predominant catalogue of Pixar is a living testament to the fact you can make ostensible "children's movies" that adults can not only watch - but openly champion as legitimate Great Films.

And in any case, plain fact is, the majority of our cherished comicbook characters started life very much as disposable, badly written & illustrated children's entertainment. It just so happened that when the Golden Age kids grew into angsty adults that the medium started to itself evolve and "mature". It's not without reason that it was during the 70s and 80s we saw the Millers, Moores et al bringing some complexity (albeit the grimdark adolescence in the case of the former name); they were the generation that grew up reading that rubbish, and wanted to make them more than pulp fiction.

But at their root? They're daft-as-brush stories featuring Kite Man, the Calendar King, Ant-Man, and so on. Except maybe those early Wonder Woman that in retrospect were obvious nods towards William Moulton Marston's interest in bondage :pac: How that every got past the censors I'll never know.

Indeed, Pixar do some great story telling, there target audience are children, but they produce an end product that can be enjoyed by a wider audience than it was aimed at. Which is a good thing, and one that films should aspire to. They don't make their films childish and/or overly simplify the films.

Alan Moore showed that the comic medium doesn't need to be all about super heros and super villains, and tapped into the zeitgeist of the paranoia of the cold war to produce some interesting works.

Talking of how silly the early Super Hero Comics were, I'm still waiting for the Superman film where they bring back his odd power of being able to fire mini versions of himself from his fingers... I'd love to see just how pants on head silly that'd be on the screen.

Good point on Wonder Woman... that really was one that should have been caught by the censors in retrospect.

Greyfox

Tired Gardener wrote: »

the topics and themes covered in them are not adult.

In fairness some of the films do have some young adult themes like death and
sacrifice and the attempted multiverse explanation wasn't just aimed at kids

Foxtrol

Interesting that some here are continuing to push the narrative that being able to make a movie that can be enjoyed and loved by people of different age groups and those across different continents is something to be inherently ashamed of.

artvanderlay

Foxtrol wrote: »

Interesting that some here are continuing to push the narrative that being able to make a movie that can be enjoyed and loved by people of different age groups and those across different continents is something to be inherently ashamed of.

A porn film is something that can be enjoyed and loved by people of different age groups and those across different continents. Should the makers of that be applauded too???


Personally, I loved the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, especially the first 2 and some of 3. I still have a soft spot for them to this day. However, I know they are not as good as something like Goodfellas/Casino/Raging Bull because they (Superman 1-3) are kids movies, and I grew up. These Marvel movies and similar are dominant in a way that Superman and the like never was, and this is what gets under my skin; it's Marvel/Star Wars/Pixar everwhere!!! Look, I know the movie business is that - a business - but once upon a time there would be a bubble and then it would burst giving way to the new (bloated studio movies giving way to edgier, younger movies...giving way to special effects blockbusters...giving way to indie movies, and so on). I feel we have been stuck with Marvel and this bull**** for too many years now, and there is no slackening of interest, which leads me to conclude that most people who go to these bland, banal movies are morons, who wouldn't know a good movie if they saw one. There are people that would never even watch an old movie, especially kids, so they think Marvel is the pinnacle of cinematic achievement. Now, I probably am here arguing with people who do know their movies, but I'm not talking about you, nor looking to fight with you; I'm just pointing out some obvious stuff here. When I was in my late teens/early 20s, I watched every old movie I could get my hands on because I had an interest in movies and liked certain actors/directors. How many Marvel kids are doing this? How many have seen non-Marvel Robert Downey Jnr/Mark Ruffalo/Don Cheadle etc movies? Not many I guess, and that's fine, but Scorsese is right; it's not cinema, it's an amusement ride.

Greyfox

artvanderlay wrote: »

and there is no slackening of interest, which leads me to conclude that most people who go to these bland, banal movies are morons, who wouldn't know a good movie if they saw one. There are people that would never even watch an old movie, especially kids, so they think Marvel is the pinnacle of cinematic achievement. Now, I probably am here arguing with people who do know their movies, but I'm not talking about you, nor looking to fight with you

I hate film snobs, they dont like something so they think it's ok to put down other people rather than accept that people like different things and they dont know how to give credit when credit is due.

Your in the minority if you think their bland and loads of film critics have Marvel films they loved. Theirs no slacking of interest because their good stories, witty dialogue, likable characters and have plenty of action. Most of the films get good reviews, yes plenty of people don't like them but no film is liked by everybody. You hate them and your entitled to your opinion but your in the minority. Lots of young people watch superhero films and don't watch better films and lots of people don't watch any sf/fantasy/superhero films.. both groups are idiots.

Your allowed love Marvel films as well as loving Gone with the wind and Casablanca and people like myself enjoy both. Lots of young people overlook great old films but that has nothing to do with Marvel as that has been happening for decades.

I plan to watch both Shindlers list and Guardians of the galaxy again soon. Now Shindlers list is a much better film but I might end up been more in the mood to rewatch Guardians OTG. Their totally different films but ultimately their both cinema

Just wanted to say that Flubber is an absolute masterpiece, by the way.

Tired Gardener

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just wanted to say that Flubber is an absolute masterpiece, by the way.

My sarcasm detector just went ballistic!

smelly sock

I think Cinema prices are the main issue.

Greyfox

smelly sock wrote: »

I think Cinema prices are the main issue.

It's a factor along with silly popcorn prices but I think the main issue is theirs so much home viewing choice that people have film and tv backlogs which cause films to be ignored and it's usually the good original films that are getting ignored.

The White Wolf

Just curious.....what was the last wide cinema release that had a bumper run time (3+ hrs) that wasn't a superhero film?

From what I gather there generally isn't any patience among the general audience to have sit through a film of that length. Just look at Ridley Scott and Zack Snyder as two modern examples.

So to be fair to Disney, that has always been a thing long before the MCU.

dark crystal

Greyfox wrote: »

No, they just need to make films as good as Taxi Driver again but there not capable of that any more. When they do get finance the films they are making are not good enough. It would seem now as though great writing is the domain of TV shows

That's patently not true.

There's plenty of great writing, directing etc., the problem is getting financing to make them. After that, it's getting cinemas to show them on any scale.

I live in Waterford and had to travel to Dublin to see Midsommar earlier this year because the two cinemas here only tend to show big budget dross and animation instead of catering for anyone with a taste for anything more discerning.

There have been plenty of films 'as good as' taxi driver made, problem is, they have a major fight on their hands to be financed, distributed and seen.

Homelander

It's not entirely as simple as blaming Marvel/brainless audiences/other scapegoats, even though I personally detest the fact that studios are now adopting the round-peg-square-hole formula now and transforming some traditionally subtler and more under-stated franchises into explosion driven, quip filled blockbusters. It works for Marvel; try and directly translate it elsewhere and the results tend to be poor, but it doesn't seem to stop them.

However anyway, with the rise of streaming and VOD (which also plays a massive part), there are more movies being made than ever, for many it's easier to secure finance for a platform release/VOD release than try and secure cinema distribution.

People seem to be completely ignoring the fact that a) notwithstanding that more films are being made than ever and b) TV has become a major force in delivering home 'cinematic' experiences and c) the overall nature of competition in the field of entertainment and how it's delivered has completely evolved.

Even the most elemental aspect of that - back in the 70's, 80's and even 90's, watching a film in the cinema was a radically different experience than watching it at home, whatever the format, be it VHS or cable, or otherwise.

Now, that gap isn't there. There's an enormous tendency, and I'm guilty of this myself, to think of certain films as 'one I'm content to wait for', because I can watch it at home on my 55" OLED screen with surround sound. You can bet that if the alternative was, in fact, a 24" TV and a copy of the movie on VHS, I'd be far more inclined to see it 'the way it should be'. That's not Marvel's fault. (and keeping in mind, I do go and see a lot of what we might call non-blockbuster films in the cinema, but I can't get to them all)

So it's not as simple as one simple statement or fact; there are any amount of factors that are 'killing' certain types of movies to a certain degree, but we must also remember that they're finding financing and a home on new platforms, and that projects that would never have seen the light of day in a cinema are also now regularly coming to fruition.

Finally, it's embarrassingly to see people imply that the MCU is for cinematic-ignorant brainwashed masses who seemingly can't understand anything beyond lasers and explosions (or indeed, that the movies are built around little more).

I'm sorry, but it's basically the classic "old man yells at cloud" photo from The Simpsons. You don't have to like Marvel movies, but to so condescendingly downplay them as rubbish for the masses isn't any kind of compelling or credible argument.

No-one would argue that every aspect of the MCU is tremendous film-making but as an actual universe, they've done impressive work in creating a cohesive and organic cinematic universe that generates tremendous buy-in and investment from audiences. And some of the better stand alone movies - Iron Man, Winter Soldier, Thor: Ragnarok come to mind - are genuinely excellent movies, with or without the Marvel yardstick, and just taken as films in their own right.

Some of them aren't great, but they still have a place thanks to the interwoven tapestry nature of the MCU, and even the best franchises have misfires. I would wager that the worst offence the MCU has produced to-date is a 'just OK' type of movie (Black Panther or Captain Marvel spring to mind); pretty commendable considering they're at it for over a decade and almost two dozen movies.

mikhail

Homelander wrote: »

It's not entirely as simple as blaming Marvel/brainless audiences/other scapegoats, even though I personally detest the fact that studios are now adopting the round-peg-square-hole formula now and transforming some traditionally subtler and more under-stated franchises into explosion driven, quip filled blockbusters.

Star Trek comes to mind for me. Did you have other examples in mind?

Foxtrol

artvanderlay wrote: »

A porn film is something that can be enjoyed and loved by people of different age groups and those across different continents. Should the makers of that be applauded too???

Personally, I loved the Christopher Reeve Superman movies, especially the first 2 and some of 3. I still have a soft spot for them to this day. However, I know they are not as good as something like Goodfellas/Casino/Raging Bull because they (Superman 1-3) are kids movies, and I grew up. These Marvel movies and similar are dominant in a way that Superman and the like never was, and this is what gets under my skin; it's Marvel/Star Wars/Pixar everwhere!!! Look, I know the movie business is that - a business - but once upon a time there would be a bubble and then it would burst giving way to the new (bloated studio movies giving way to edgier, younger movies...giving way to special effects blockbusters...giving way to indie movies, and so on). I feel we have been stuck with Marvel and this bull**** for too many years now, and there is no slackening of interest, which leads me to conclude that most people who go to these bland, banal movies are morons, who wouldn't know a good movie if they saw one. There are people that would never even watch an old movie, especially kids, so they think Marvel is the pinnacle of cinematic achievement. Now, I probably am here arguing with people who do know their movies, but I'm not talking about you, nor looking to fight with you; I'm just pointing out some obvious stuff here. When I was in my late teens/early 20s, I watched every old movie I could get my hands on because I had an interest in movies and liked certain actors/directors. How many Marvel kids are doing this? How many have seen non-Marvel Robert Downey Jnr/Mark Ruffalo/Don Cheadle etc movies? Not many I guess, and that's fine, but Scorsese is right; it's not cinema, it's an amusement ride.

It's nothing about applauding them, like or dislike what you want. I'm talking about the oozing superiority complex that you can see from many posts about Marvel movies. Some come close to ones you expect from a cliche movie school yard bully.

Wow, you 'grew up' and didn't like Superman movies anymore, congratulations. Thankfully most people these days are comfortable enough with themselves to not take a step back when others attempt to put them down for their tastes.

It's funny how it is similar with other media, like music. You have people that are so bitter that the music they enjoy isn't preferred by the majority of people. The folk you can see visibly seethe when a popular song comes on and everyone else is enjoying themselves to it.

It seems to be a sad place to be when you have to advertise how superior you feel you are because your taste is different to someone elses.

Tony EH

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe they need to make films as good for showing in a cinema as Marvel do?

The vast majority of films are designed to be shown in a cinema. That's the natural medium for this type of entertainment.

It always has been and it's arguable that all feature films are better on a cinema screen. Watching something like 'Raging Bull' on a cinema screen is a far superior way to see it than on a 70 inch screen in a living room, despite it being a grainy, B+W picture.

Scorsese probably wouldn't even be able to get the shekels together for a film like that now, which is a sad state of affairs indeed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What I mean is that cinema competes with just watching things at home.

Cinema has always had to compete with television, from the moment that latter was invented. That's why we've had bigger screen ratios and different sound designs, etc, over the years.

It was the "threat" of TV that led to the cinema of the 1970's, which was markedly different than the content of the decades before it, especially in terms of subject and tone. Attendances were down across the board, so studios were throwing money at any director to make anything as they were so desperate to get people back into picture houses. This is the reason we got the likes of Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg and Lucas in the first place.

Sure, TV has "caught up" in many respects with the home "experience" being a lot better than it was in the 80's or 90's, and you'll get nobody that will want to trade in their blu's, flat screens and surround sound for what came before. But the "threat" is still the same as it was when TV was 4:3 and a mono speaker. "Watching things at home" isn't any kind of new competition for cinemas, even if the technical advances means the dynamic has altered once again.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Cinema is changing...

...for the worse, a lot of people would say. Change is not always a good thing.

This is what the directors quoted in this thread are talking about. The change involved here is the signal to noise ratio that's being created by these empty, franchise, "roller coaster rides".

I suppose that, eventually, this multiplex mulch will burn out like all fads do and it will get replaced by something else, which hopefully will be a little less overwhelming and more varied.

But, for now, I understand completely what the likes of Coppola and Scorsese are talking about.

Tired Gardener

Foxtrol wrote: »

It's nothing about applauding them, like or dislike what you want. I'm talking about the oozing superiority complex that you can see from many posts about Marvel movies. Some come close to ones you expect from a cliche movie school yard bully.

Wow, you 'grew up' and didn't like Superman movies anymore, congratulations. Thankfully most people these days are comfortable enough with themselves to not take a step back when others attempt to put them down for their tastes.

It's funny how it is similar with other media, like music. You have people that are so bitter that the music they enjoy isn't preferred by the majority of people. The folk you can see visibly seethe when a popular song comes on and everyone else is enjoying themselves to it.

It seems to be a sad place to be when you have to advertise how superior you feel you are because your taste is different to someone elses.

Can you show me on the doll where the bad people hurt your feelings?

Seriously, that is some classic A grade victim complex you've just waffled on about there.

Yes, some of us are a bit disappointed that what are essential kids films are taking the cinema into a very limited direction. We aren't saying you are not allowed to enjoy these films, we may find it baffling, but nowhere has anyone in here said that they should be banned. If you enjoy MCU films, great more power to you, but can you at least acknowledge the impact they are having upon the trends in modern cinema?

Greyfox

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Seriously, that is some classic A grade victim complex you've just waffled on about there.

Yes, some of us are a bit disappointed that what are essential kids films are taking the cinema into a very limited direction. We aren't saying you are not allowed to enjoy these films, we may find it baffling, but nowhere has anyone in here said that they should be banned. If you enjoy MCU films, great more power to you, but can you at least acknowledge the impact they are having upon the trends in modern cinema?

What he said was 100% correct. Grand if people don't like Marvel films but looking down your nose at people because they dont like the same films as you is not ok and there has been a lot of that on this thread. You think their for kids but their actually made for everybody including the adults who enjoy serious films. Marvel fans know the impact their having but they dont care because most of the films are very good. The general consensus from the critics is most are good films and good films are good for cinema. The people who hate the Marvel films are in the minority.

Dog Murphy

I used to go to the cinema on a regular basis probably close to once a month and sometimes would even take days off work to go if it was something I didn't want to watch when there was a big crowd on a Saturday. When I was unemployed for almost all of 2010 and 2011 I went to the cinema almost once a week for long spells.

In the last 3 or 4 years I've checked the cinema listings and very little has appealed to me and I've only been to the cinema a couple of times in the last 3 or 4 years.

I used to like the Marvel films but after a while got sick of them as there are far too many of them and essentially seem to be not films anymore just a TV series on a big screen, also superhero films went from being enjoyable fun pieces of entertainment with some cleverness to them to essentially a load of noise with very little emphasis on anything other than big noisy set pieces. I remember the first Avengers film getting good reviews and when I watched it it as probably one of the worst films I'd seen in years just unbelievably boring crap. Prior to 2010 superhero films used to be a bit of fun and there were maybe only a couple per year, now they have consumed everything and it seems 90% of films getting a wide release in a cinema are either part of a franchise or a remake of a film.

My DVD buying of films on DVD has declined massively in the last couple of years as there seems to be a a lot less I'm interested in watching that there was in the past.

MadYaker

They are massively popular and like anything massively popular they are shallow and bland because to get the most bums in seats you have to cater to the lowest common denominator. There's nothing wrong with that imo these films don't pretend to be real art and I don't think anything has necessarily changed in recent years though so I'm not sure why Scorsese felt the need to make this point now. Maybe he's just getting old and cranky.