Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

Greyfox

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Reviews are in a similar situation, not a gauge of worth, rather just the opinion of the person.

Yes one review is not a gauge of worth but loads of reviews saying the same thing would be a gauge of worth.

The Late Late Show

There is a debate about whether there are too many superhero films or not. We must remember though that things weren't always this way. Marvel and DC material was confined mainly to comics and TV. Up until Superman was made in the 1970s, superhero films were rare in cinema and remained rare. 1989's Batman is the film I name when I want to define a childhood cinema experience that excited one. I remember watching the film, then talking to my dad about it coming home and then with my mam when I got home. This film excited the world at the time and kickstarted in many ways the superhero trend.

Now, I feel superheros are entitled to their era like all other film genres. There was a time early on in cinema when 80% of output were westerns. Buddy cops, Vietnam and Vietnam vet films dominated the 1980s. Bond and other spy thrillers dominated the 1960s. Star Wars and other space action flicks have dominated the cinema too. Every type of film has its era and its time. Superhero films are the dominant force for now.

Dyr

Tony EH wrote: »

Because he's had a massive pain in his arse trying to get his last couple of pictures made. He could barely scrape together the money for 'Silence' and 'The Irishman' had to be dumped onto NetFlix, because they were the only ones willing to pony up for it. It's become harder and harder for film makers to get studios to back their work and even when they do put up some backing, getting the film into the multiplex's isn't guaranteed either.



I don't think so. Nor is it "Old man shouts at Cloud" or any of that shite. He has a very valid point.

In any case, his point notwithstanding, I don't think Scorsese's troubles are as serious as other film makers who don't have his clout, but have no interest in being a yes man to a major studio.

Are Disney not lining up a Monopoly on Multiplexes, so their product will always have preference?

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

I am fully aware of this being the reason why it is so expensive, this huge cost however completely flies in the face of the narrative that Scorsese and posters here are trying to build that poor little film makers are trying to make these amazing cheap movies and are being turned away because all the money is being funneled into the MCU.

As I said, "deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue".

Foxtrol wrote: »

Studios weren't lining up to risk throwing money away on a director who doesn't have any experience using this sort of expensive technology and rather than self reflecting that maybe he should try another route with the movie he decides to point the finger and blame MCU for his problems.

99% of directors don't make the special effects themselves, you know. There are crews of effects artists (and an art director) - in this case, ILM - that are hired for the job and they have to prove themselves worthy of it too, both to the director and the studio producers.

Do you really think that none of this stuff is trialled before the camera rolls and it's all just down to a big risk? You don't think studios would want to see these proposed effects in demo form before the agree to hand over the cash?

The reality of this is that Scorsese, more than likely, believed that the de-ageing techniques he's pushing was the gimmick he needed to get studios interested in the first place, because without it he wasn't getting any backing at all.

The fact that Scorsese can get together legends like De Niro, Pacino, Pesci and Keitel together in a gangster movie and not have studios jumping over themselves to fund the project is telling in itself.

Seriously, instead of just immediately jumping in and white knighting your favourite franchise, stop and think about what you're saying for a moment and how it's not reflective of the over all points being made by these people.

Tony EH

Bambi wrote: »

Are Disney not lining up a Monopoly on Multiplexes, so their product will always have preference?

I don't know. But they are certainly trying to create a situation whereby they are the biggest media concern and that will no doubt stretch to "influencing" cinemas.

It's no secret that smaller chains and one off screens are being pressured by Disney, but they are not alone in using their umph to massage cinema owners. In America, studios had to be banned from setting their own ticket prices and forcing cinemas to block book their films. But this is or was up for review I believe, and no doubt Disney and their army of lawyers are/were ready. But studios have been trying this game for years.

As for a monopoly on multiplexes, this may be the case. Disney view the multiplex as more of a family friendly arena, as opposed to the smaller theatres and there are those who've claimed that they tend to favour the multiplexes for showing their wares.

My biggest concern with Disney is the bland, factory, product they put out and their swallowing of the likes of Fox doesn't bode well either. Their output is very family orientated and as a result, is rather insipid and safe, where nothing of any real consequence happens and the more of their competitors that the "acquire" , more and more of these safe, bland, nothing, films will get dumped into cinemas.

Homelander

It's not telling at all to be honest. De Niro, Pacino, Pesci and Keital are not huge audience-draw names at all anymore and that's just the realistic fact of it. It's not hard to understand why studios weren't jumping over themselves to fund a $160m old-school gangster film. Really has nothing to do with Marvel.

The fact that Scorsese can get together legends like De Niro, Pacino, Pesci and Keitel together in a gangster movie and not have studios jumping over themselves to fund the project is telling in itself.

I would say if his 'new project' had been a more straight-forward gangster movie with the same cast with a projected cost of $20m-40m he wouldn't have had much issue. Claiming he 'had' to flash the de-aging gimmick to get €160m of funding, as opposed to no funding at all without, doesn't strike me as any sort of credible argument.

Let's get real here. Finding difficulty in securing $160M for a 3.5hr long gangster movie that relies heavily on CGI technology, and wouldn't be seen as a general crowd drawer to justify that tag, has got pretty much zilch to do with Marvel. That is an absolutely collossal sum of money for what is a major risk from any studios perspective.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

As I said, "deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue".

I call it not buying into a sob story attempt at propaganda. The fact that this movie is going to cost as much as many MCU blockbuster movies is key to the discussion and something Scorsese coincidentally leaves out from his moans.

99% of directors don't make the special effects themselves, you know. There are crews of effects artists (and an art director) - in this case, ILM - that are hired for the job and they have to prove themselves worthy of it too, both to the director and the studio producers.

Do you really think that none of this stuff is trialled before the camera rolls and it's all just down to a big risk? You don't think studios would want to see these proposed effects in demo form before the agree to hand over the cash?

Yes and these imaginary demos could have looked terrible and why studios passed. Only 1 or maybe 2 movies have done it correctly and they were very selective use of the tool and in much different genres and likely situations than this movie will require.

The reality of this is that Scorsese, more than likely, believed that the de-ageing techniques he's pushing was the gimmick he needed to get studios interested in the first place, because without it he wasn't getting any backing at all.

The fact that Scorsese can get together legends like De Niro, Pacino, Pesci and Keitel together in a gangster movie and not have studios jumping over themselves to fund the project is telling in itself.

Again, it is everyone else's fault, zero self reflection.

Seriously, instead of just immediately jumping in and white knighting your favourite franchise, stop and think about what you're saying for a moment and how it's not reflective of the over all points being made by these people.

White knighting :rolleyes:

What I've been saying is quoting other posters so I'm not sure how you can say it isn't reflective. If people display an obnoxious superiority complex and/or blame MCU for things that they aren't chiefly the cause then I'm going to point it out.

Tony EH

^

Again, just more leaping to the defence of something you feel is under attack.

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

It's not telling at all to be honest. De Niro, Pacino, Pesci and Keital are not huge audience-draw names at all anymore and that's just the realistic fact of it. It's not hard to understand why studios weren't jumping over themselves to fund a $160m old-school gangster film. Really has nothing to do with Marvel.

You just made my point for me. It's "telling" of the current state of movies that legends of cinema have to jump through hoops to get a picture made and it gets dumped onto TV.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

^

Again, just more leaping to the defence of something you feel is under attack.

Just like you're leaping to the defense of Scorsese as he yells at a cloud?

MCU is in great health with a great pipeline of movies and TV shows to come for the next few years so this 'attack' doesn't concern me at all. I just find it fascinating how much their success frustrates people.

I'll take it from your inability to actually address the points I made that you can't. Keep blaming everyone else for issues.

Homelander

Tony EH wrote: »

You just made my point for me. It's "telling" of the current state of movies that legends of cinema have to jump through hoops to get a picture made and it gets dumped onto TV.

No I didn't, and in fact you failed to address my point - those stars you mentioned aren't big draws at all today, to a modern audience, realistically, Scorcese is also not an overly big draw, and a $160m gangster movie, 3.5hr in length, is a major risk for any studio.

But sure, let's revert to your repeated insistence that Marvel is somehow to blame for this situation.

Rather than it being the fact that no studio wanted to take the risk, on what's to any logical mind, a risky, incredibly expensive venture.

He could've went off and made an amazing conventional gangster movie with the same cast for a fraction of the budget of The Irishman, I sincerely doubt there would've been many issues with funding for that.

I mean The Departed cost $90m as an example, but that had serious star power with incredibly popular contemporary actors who were proven draws.

De Niro, Pesci, Keitel, Pacino....these are not box office draws for a $160m movie. You are kidding yourself if you think they are.

pixelburp

Christ on a bike I don't even know what this thread is about anymore, from my point of view you're "all" just shouting and rutting at each other.

I like the MCU and Martin Scorsese. Both are great, and both have their flaws.

Oh and I've yet to see Casino, so there. You all have a new point of attack. :P

brianregan09

Go watch it , a fantastic movie

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Christ on a bike I don't even know what this thread is about anymore

From some of the replies on here, you're not the only one.

pixelburp wrote: »

Oh and I've yet to see Casino, so there. You all have a new point of attack. :P

Watch it. I dismissed it as 'Goodfellas part II" in the 90's, but over the years it's grown on me.

Dyr

Its interesting that people are attacking Scorseses motivation for making the comments rather than the veracity of the comments themselves.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

Just like you're leaping to the defense of Scorsese as he yells at a cloud?

No I'm not. I am mere saying I understand his position and that he has a point. Martin Scorsese can defend himself quite readily I'm sure.

Foxtrol wrote: »

MCU is in great health with a great pipeline of movies and TV shows to come for the next few years so this 'attack' doesn't concern me at all. I just find it fascinating how much their success frustrates people.

For me, it's observation, rather than "frustration". And it's an observation that's perfectly valid. What's gas though is the fact that there are folk out there that feel the need to rush to the defence of twee pop culture items they hold dear, because someone says the effect they're having on cinema isn't necessarily a positive one.

But as I said earlier, it's a fad and one that will eventually pass when people get bored of seeing the same story beats play out across endless masked superheroes.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'll take it from your inability to actually address the points I made that you can't. Keep blaming everyone else for issues.

The points in your last post weren't worth addressing and some of them have already been gone over anyway.

You see things as "sob story propaganda". There's nothing to address here.

Foxtrol

Bambi wrote: »

Its interesting that people are attacking Scorseses motivation for making the comments rather than the veracity of the comments themselves.

His moaning about having difficulty getting his summer blockbuster level funding required for the Irishman is specifically part of his comments.

If anything it would be weird to ignore that part of his complaint, especially as it is being cited in the arguments that many are making on this thread.

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

No I didn't, and in fact you failed to address my point - those stars you mentioned aren't big draws at all today, to a modern audience, realistically, Scorcese is also not an overly big draw, and a $160m gangster movie, 3.5hr in length, is a major risk for any studio.

Which I find "telling" of the current state of cinema. What's not to understand here.

Homelander wrote: »

But sure, let's revert to your repeated insistence that Marvel is somehow to blame for this situation.

I don't believe I've said "Marvel" is solely to blame for anything.

It has had a definite effect (negatively for a lot of people) on how studios pursue movie ideas today, however. The success of the MCU has had other major studios trying to emulate that and trying to generate their own "shared universe", which has the knock on of drowning out other types of film, which are now viewed as too much of a risk.

There's nothing controversial in this.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

No I'm not. I am mere saying I understand his position and that he has a point. Martin Scorsese can defend himself quite readily I'm sure.

For me, it's observation, rather than "frustration". And it's an observation that's perfectly valid. What's gas though is the fact that there are folk out there that feel the need to rush to the defence of twee pop culture items they hold dear, because someone says the effect they're having on cinema isn't necessarily a positive one.

So when you make a point in agreement of Scorsese's view you're merely saying you 'understand his position' but when I make a counterpoint I 'rush to the defence of twee pop culture items I hold dear'.

Do you not see the obvious hypocrisy there?

But as I said earlier, it's a fad and one that will eventually pass when people get bored of seeing the same story beats play out across endless masked superheroes.

So far it is a period of 11 years for MCU or nearly 20 years since the first X-Men which seems a bit more than 'a fad'.

If you keep saying it will pass I'm sure at some point you'll be right. Whatever helps you sleep at night until then.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

So when you make a point in agreement of Scorsese's view you're merely saying you 'understand his position' but when I make a counterpoint I 'rush to the defence of twee pop culture items I hold dear'.

Do you not see the obvious hypocrisy there?

I understand his (and others) point of view, which you think is sob story propaganda.

Shall we leave it there, because this isn't going anywhere.

Homelander

But I'm still confused as to what does it tell us about the current state of cinema?

De-Niro, Keitel, Pesci, Pacino. You've said studios should be falling over the chance to make a movie with these guys - perfectly reasonable point....for a relatively low-key film, not a $160m gangster movie that's 3 and a half hours long.

Once again, if Scorsese pitched a $40m movie with the same cast, I doubt he'd have had much difficulty getting funding. All of this other films a) cost a lot less and b) has much more mass market appeal in most cases by having a contemporary 'hot' cast.

Which adds up to studios willing to make an investment. But a $160m production with limited broad appeal and a largely irrelevant cast in terms of box office draw? Again, not hard to see why that didn't get much traction.

Scorsese makes fine films and I've no doubt The Irishman will be a masterpiece, immensely looking forward to seeing it. But there's only one reason that Scorsese had trouble getting it made, and that's because it's far too big a risk for any studio given the enormous cost and lack of significant mass appeal.

Would imagine it wouldn't be much different if Steven Spielberg pitched a $160m western drama, realistically, and he's a director far more suited to mass market appeal to begin with.

Studios do not casually throw around that sort of money which is generally reserved for major blockbusters. Even back in the days of Casino and Goodfellas, when both Scorses and respective casts were at the top of their craft, such films did not cost anything remotely approaching that sum.

Also again, Scorsese's more recent films have had considerably smaller budgets while boasting huge box-office draw, ensemble casts.

So once more, really not sure how him having difficulty securing a whopping $160m for a crime-drama with no majorly identifiable box-office draw that immediately validates the cost is telling us anything whatsoever about the 'current state' of cinema.

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

But I'm still confused as to what does it tell us about the current state of cinema?

How?

You've just stated why it's telling of the state of current cinematic trends over two posts.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

I understand his (and others) point of view, which you think is sob story propaganda.

Shall we leave it there, because this isn't going anywhere.

Repeatedly claiming people are 'deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue' just because they don't agree with you doesn't point at all to you understanding the view of others.

I'm good with leaving it here, I'll leave you to dodge questions from other posters (sorry Homelander).

Homelander

OK, so studios aren't willing to take risks on mammoth €160M new IPs in the crime/drama genre, 3.5hrs in length and without a box-office drawing cast. Fair enough.

Can you point to a time when they were, adjusting for inflation obviously? I doubt Goodfellas would've gotten made if the budget in 1990 was $80m instead of $25 million, nor Casino, or if The Departed was $160m either for that matter, despite the stellar, high-draw cast.

I'm somewhat baffled that you are fixated on this notion that "A legendary director can't get his film made" without given due regard to the fact that the massive budget is the issue, not the fact he wanted to make a film.

It's nothing new, nothing to do with Marvel, nothing to do with the 'state of current cinema', everything to do with the cost to projected return being way, way too risky.

All throughout cinematic history films have struggled to get made, been shelved, or bombed due to massive budgets. Look at something like Waterworld, ended up costing nearly $180m, if the studio had been approached with that figure they'd have been laughed out of the office before even getting a sentence out.

Your point would make sense if Scorsese was struggling to get funding for an ambitious crime-drama with a good cast budgeted at $40-50m ballpark, or whatever, and I'd agree with that being a terrible shame.

However, and I say this as a massive Scorsese fan, there is nothing baffling about him having difficulty to get funding of $160m for a lengthy crime-drama with an unremarkable cast from a mass-draw POV.....nothing whatsoever.

That's a bigger budget than some Marvel movies. It's almost triple what they were able to secure for Deadpool for example, a comic-book movie with a bankable star, against a target market in which comic-book material was at it's utter height.

So sorry Tony, it tells us nothing about current cinema only that The Irishman is a collosal risk for any studio thinking logically, would've been in 1979, 1989, 1999 or 2019.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

Repeatedly claiming people are 'deliberately trying to misunderstand the issue' just because they don't agree with you doesn't point at all to you understanding the view of others.

I'm good with leaving it here, I'll leave you to dodge questions from other posters (sorry Homelander).

Not "dodging" anything. Just getting tired of having to repeat myself.

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

I doubt Goodfellas would've gotten made if the budget in 1990 was $80m instead of $25 million, nor Casino, or if The Departed was $160m either for that matter, despite the stellar, high-draw cast.

None of those films had to go up against a cinematic trend the likes of which these superhero franchises represent. If they did have to face something similar they might not have been made either.

Homelander wrote: »

I'm somewhat baffled that you are fixated on this notion that "A legendary director can't get his film made" without given due regard to the fact that the massive budget is the issue, not the fact he wanted to make a film.

It's not baffling at all to be a bit off tooth that a legendary director and a group of legendary actors found it difficult to secure funding for a genre film that they are proven in, in the face of current cinematic trends, and had to make do with being relegated to TV.

It's disappointing. What's there to be "baffled" about?

Homelander

The budget Tony, you've constantly overlooking the enormous budget and seem intent on refusing to address it.

Do you've any idea of how collosal a budget of $160M is for a film like that is? A crime-drama with a cast that isn't a box office draw relative to that cost?

Let's make a few comparions here to a few other films released recently and their respective budgets.

Ad Astra - $90m budget. (Brad Pitt, major sci-fi spectacle, was predicted to translate well to international markets)
IT Chapter Two - $85m buget. (on the back on the highest grossing horror film ever made)
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - $95m budget. (major box-office draw cast, Quentin Tarantino production)
Alita Battle Angel - $170m budget (produced by Cameron, expected to be a major blockbuster with mass appeal to all markets)
Deadpool - $60m budget (comic-book movie perceived as risky due to r-rated nature)
Deadpool 2 - $110m (despite collosal success of first, still unwilling to pump 'Marvel' level money into it)

Yet you seen to think that there's something remarkably strange about studios balking at spending $160m on a 3.5hr long crime-drama by Martin Scorsese?

It's not baffling at all to be a bit off tooth that a legendary director and a group of legendary actors found it difficult to secure funding for a genre film that they are proven in

Yes, in films costing a fraction of what the Irishman does. Once again, you've ignoring the budget aspect, and have been since the very beginning of the discussion.

Your point would be valid if Martin Scorsese was struggling to get such a movie made with a projected budget of $40-80m range. Not when he was seeking a 'Marvel' level budget for a production with, by comparison, massively limited mass appeal.

There is no escaping that $160M price tag, but you're ignoring it ad naseum, when it's literally the smoking gun in this particular argument (Martin Scorsese can't get movies made in this blockbuster climate).

He would've had major trouble getting that budget approved at any point in his career, not just in recent times.

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

The budget Tony, you've constantly overlooking the enormous budget and seem intent on refusing to address it.

Do you've any idea of how collosal a budget of $160M is for a film like that is? A crime-drama with a cast that isn't a box office draw relative to that cost?

Let's make a few comparions here to a few other films released recently and their respective budgets.

Ad Astra - $90m budget. (Brad Pitt, major sci-fi spectacle, was predicted to translate well to international markets)
IT Chapter Two - $85m buget. (on the back on the highest grossing horror film ever made)
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - $95m budget. (major box-office draw cast, Quentin Tarantino production)
Alita Battle Angel - $170m budget (produced by Cameron, expected to be a major blockbuster with mass appeal to all markets)
Deadpool - $60m budget (comic-book movie perceived as risky due to r-rated nature)
Deadpool 2 - $110m (despite collosal success of first, still unwilling to pump 'Marvel' level money into it)

Yet you seen to think that there's something remarkably strange about studios balking at spending $160m on a 3.5hr long crime-drama by Martin Scorsese?

I didn't say that.

This is the second time you've tried to put words in my mouth.

Look, there's nothing crazy in what I'm saying here. I simply understand what these directors are saying and think they have a point. Plus, the fact that he's found it difficult to get his recent films financed is disappointing, while recognising the affect on cinema that these franchise blockbusters have.

You're going off on tangents that I don't necessarily disagree with and wasting a lot of bandwidth.

Homelander wrote: »

He would've had major trouble getting that budget approved at any point in his career, not just in recent times.

Would he?

'The Departed' cost $90 million. In today's money, that's well over $170 million. 'Casino' cost $52 million to make in 1995. That's over $100 million now. 'The Wolf of Wall Street' was over $100 million to make too.

So, no, Scorsese didn't have that much trouble getting funding for his movies before.

Sure, 'The Irishman' has ballooned. There's no argument there and nobody has said that it's a cheap film anywhere on this thread. But that doesn't take away the problem that he's talking about either.

Homelander

In fairness those maths are off.

With inflation in mind, the Departed comes in at $110m, Casino $85m. Big figures, but The Departed had a major box-office draw cast, as did Casino, and with respect to the latter, Scorsese and that movie's cast were really at the top of the game at that point.

Critically, both are still way off the Irishman's $160M, and both were created in circumstances that were far more box-office friendly and less risk adverse from a studio POV too. Same is true of WOWS.

Adjusting for inflation, do you think if Scorcese wanted $90-100M in 1995 for Casino he would've gotten it, not just easily, but at all? Or $150m for The Departed? What about $160m for WOWS? I think we both know he would not have.

I mean, you have a situation like with movies highlighted above - IT became the highest grossing movie of all time with something like $700M gross on something like a $30m budget, yet the sequel was budgeted at $85M.

The first Deadpool movie struggled to get funding despite being pitched at a time when comic-book movies were the unassailable dominating force in cinema, and ultimately couldn't scrape together more than $60M, far, far below what they wanted to create the movie they envisioned and had to slash that vision left, right and centre.

It went on to become the highest grossing r-rated movie of all time, yet the sequel was still only greenlit for $110M, far, far short of a typical DC/Marvel budget, once again due to studio fear of a 'flash in the pan' r-rated success and hesitance to go all in.

The only reason The Irishman struggled to get funding from any studio/consortium, is because of the massive and incredibly risky cost due to projected returns on investment, in investing 'Marvel' level funding into a lengthy crime-drama.

Not the fact it's 2019, not because of Marvel or any other blockbuster franchise, not because people don't enjoy crime-dramas or Martin Scorsese films.

At $160M I'd imagine it's the most expensive film in the genre ever made by a significantly enormous margin, actually, including those that are far more 'box office star' and action driven. The equivalent of the Russo Brothers looking for $500m for their next Marvel movie, or Abram's seeking the same for Rise of the Skywalker.

Tony EH

Homelander wrote: »

In fairness those maths are off.

Yeh you're right, so scrap that.

I'm still at work and knackered, with not a lot of time to look into this stuff.

In any case, I don't have a problem with Socrsese's point of view, nor Coppola or Loach for that matter.

You think it's baloney.

*shrug