Martin Scorsese takes aim at Marvel

artvanderlay

I'd rather watch a $150 million movie by Scorsese, than a $150 million + movie by Marvel. When I watch his movies, I see the vision of a director. When I watch Marvel movies, I see the vision of a studio out to make as much money as possible. They are all so generic at this stage, I can't tell them apart. They are like the safe space of cinema: no offense caused here, no need to think too much, just sit back and indulge your inner child by watching men and women in spandex save the world (again!). Do people not get bored of this ****? Every movie is the same!!! They are like Bond movies; just churned out garbage.



How many Marvel movies will be recognised as classics in years to come? My guess is that, once the demand for them dies down, posterity will not be kind to them.

p.s. any studio that makes a star out of Ryan Reynolds deserves everybody's contempt

fluke

artvanderlay wrote: »

p.s. any studio that makes a star out of Ryan Reynolds deserves everybody's contempt

That was Sony, with a Marvel comics property.

artvanderlay

fluke wrote: »

That was Sony, with a Marvel comics property.

I knew some pedant would correct me on that; love it when I'm right :pac:

fluke

artvanderlay wrote: »

I knew some pedant would correct me on that; love it when I'm right :pac:

In this case you were wrong. I usually don't bite, but you made such a point of saying Marvel deserved contempt, which was based on an error.

Greyfox

artvanderlay wrote: »

I'd rather watch a $150 million movie by Scorsese, than a $150 million + movie by Marvel. When I watch his movies, I see the vision of a director. When I watch Marvel movies, I see the vision of a studio out to make as much money as possible... Do people not get bored of this ****? Every movie is the same!!! They are like Bond movies; just churned out garbage.

How many Marvel movies will be recognised as classics in years to come? My guess is that, once the demand for them dies down, posterity will not be kind to them.

Some would pick a Scorsese film and some would pick a Marvel film. Their's no wrong choice, just different opinions. You get bored of these films but most people who watch them don't, looks like there just not your cup of tea, which is grand. Many of the films have similarities but there not all the same, they all have plenty of differences.

Nothing wrong with the bond films, most of the films are good. Yes the bond films recycle the same plots but Hollywood has been doing this for a very long time now, just look at how many old westerns there is that have similar plotlines.

No Marvel film will ever be recognised as a classic in the same way as Goodfellas. But Marvel have there own achivements, the infinity saga took a lot of talent and hard work to put together, special effects and witty dialogue are not easy to produce. Tying 23 films together like they did with loads of talking points for fans is something Cinema had never done before.

pixelburp

Well, I'd say movies like "Logan" were - and already are - considered classics and worthy of critical praise, even if they're not MCU films they're fair game. X-Men 1 & 2 are rightly praised and well loved, while Deadpool became a cultural phenomenon - although comedy can be very fickle and subject to fashion. You got outliers like the Blade films which are well-loved among action-horror fans. As to the MCU? I can see standout films sitting above the rest: Guardians of the Galaxy I suspect will remain highly thought of, while Thord: Dark World disappears into the morass.

Logan is already essayed as a distinctly "deconstructionist" film, which IMO should be an essential phase in the evolution of superheroes in film; it wasn't the first to do so, but certainly the one to marry popular, mainstream characters in that space of pulling apart the myth of superheroes, revealing something raw & emotional (excessively so, Logan's one of those films I admire and would praise - but never ever want to watch again).

Maybe that's one of the vital elements lacking in the MCU: that while itself deserves praise for bringing serialised, long-form storytelling to cinema, it's at the expense of any sense of evolution, inward reflection or growth. Characters obviously change, but the medium and structure never has.

ErnestBorgnine

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

"Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."


Preach Marty!

El Duda

pixelburp wrote: »

(excessively so, Logan's one of those films I admire and would praise - but never ever want to watch again).

Why?


The second time I saw Logan in 4K at home it really floored me. I remember it being a very good film at the cinema but it connected with me so much more on a second viewing.

pixelburp

El Duda wrote: »

Why?


The second time I saw Logan in 4K at home it really floored me. I remember it being a very good film at the cinema but it connected with me so much more on a second viewing.

I hate nihilism as a concept, and found Logan to be a brutal, nihilistic film that wanted to burn down that X-Men universe. It offhandedly executed all those characters off screen, and left 2 remaining as broken husks. Sure there was a sliver of an optimistic ending, but watching a universe that .. well yeah, meant a lot to me, be so gleefully demolished, end with a chapter of hopelessness was heart-rending.

It was a bleak, beautiful film and like I said a deconstruction of the genre that's so far peerless - but that emotional sucker punch was too much for me to go through again. It was almost misery porn at times in its speed to put its cast through hell (something shared with Joker TBH, although Mangold's film is the superior entity IMO).

Homelander

Personally I'd also be more interested in a $150M Scorsese film more than any Marvel production, but to be fair we were talking about the financing of The Irishman in the current cinema 'landscape' rather than if such movies should be made.

As fan, I also somewhat agree that Marvel will be forgotten in the overall scheme of things, the fact that the MCU is just that - a tightly knitted universe spanning a library of films - is both an immensely good and bad thing in that regard.

Certain individual Marvel films are excellent films in their own right (say, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Ragnarok as examples) but they don't and can't stand up to be judged as individual films as they're just one supporting arch of an overall production. Iron Man, the first of its kind, is about the only strong film that can truly do that. The weaker films, on the other side, get carried heavily by the strength of the over-arching franchise, so it's all worked out tremendously for the here-and-now, but it's not going to translate well with time. (No different, to say, Harry Potter not being remembered as a cinematic masterpiece despite being an immensely popular, successful, and commendably well made franchise also)

Then you also have excellent achievements in films like Infinity War and End Game which are a) genuinely good films and b) do a superb job of coherently tying up everything that came before - but they're the cherry on the cake, the capping picture, and without that context in the near or distant future, they're never going to be remembered as classics.

I'd say Iron Man has earned a place in the history books for being the rather excellent film that kick-started the most lucrative cinematic universe ever created and ushered in a new dominant era in cinema.

The Late Late Show

Greyfox wrote: »

Some would pick a Scorsese film and some would pick a Marvel film. Their's no wrong choice, just different opinions. You get bored of these films but most people who watch them don't, looks like there just not your cup of tea, which is grand. Many of the films have similarities but there not all the same, they all have plenty of differences.

Nothing wrong with the bond films, most of the films are good. Yes the bond films recycle the same plots but Hollywood has been doing this for a very long time now, just look at how many old westerns there is that have similar plotlines.

No Marvel film will ever be recognised as a classic in the same way as Goodfellas. But Marvel have there own achivements, the infinity saga took a lot of talent and hard work to put together, special effects and witty dialogue are not easy to produce. Tying 23 films together like they did with loads of talking points for fans is something Cinema had never done before.

Exactly. Marvel films vary from good to not as good as with Bond films, Westerns and other such films. The best Marvel films like the Iron Man films are classics of their type and are a good way to pass a few hours. Same goes for the Bond films. As with the Bonds, Marvel films range from darker to lighter and what people prefer depend on taste.

As said before, many people complain there are 'too many superhero films' and 'too many Marvel and DCEU films' but no moreso than other genres. Until recently, superhero films were rare and indeed many argue that the various Marvel and DC characters were long overdue to make their big screen debuts.

Martin Scorsese's type of film like Goodfellas had their era too and loads of these type of films. Indeed, it is rather ironic that the DCEU film Joker was inspired in part by Scorcese's Taxi Driver (maybe this is why he aimed at Marvel and not DCEU!!).

johnny_ultimate

Marty’s NYT piece is superb and captures exactly what he was trying to say with all the nuance that sound bites and headlines don’t allow for.

Dyr

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Exactly. Marvel films vary from good to not as good as with Bond films, Westerns and other such films.

Some of the greatest films ever made were Westerns, I doubt any Marvel (or Bond) film will ever be referred to in that way

I've only seen a few Marvel films, the first Iron Man, Dr Strange, Venom, one of the Captain Americas

TBH I think only one of those even qualifies as "Good".

The Late Late Show

Bambi wrote: »

Some of the greatest films ever made were Westerns, I doubt any Marvel (or Bond) film will ever be referred to in that way

I've only seen a few Marvel films, the first Iron Man, Dr Strange, Venom, one of the Captain Americas

TBH I think only one of those even qualifies as "Good".

It is true there are many Westerns that are considered among the greatest ever made. Shane, High Noon, The Searchers, etc. regularly feature in lists of greatest films ever made.

Films like Bond and Marvel tend to divide audiences. But films like Iron Man I would call 'modern classics of their genre'. If you Google it, you can see it is very well received. On the other hand, Google 'Venom film' and you find it is not well received by most.

It is clear that there is a massive difference in quality in Marvel and Bond films. Some are excellent, some are quite poor. All will satisfy fans of the genre who are not overly critical but a handful will satisfy all. Iron Man is an example of a film that gains fans outside its target audience.

Foxtrol

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Marty’s NYT piece is superb and captures exactly what he was trying to say with all the nuance that sound bites and headlines don’t allow for.

Well it was again his own fault that the soundbites and headlines were there.

He is entitled to his opinion but it is hard to take someone as being a credible judge when they admit that they've only 'tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me'. If someone made the same strong broad claims here about Superhero movies, or even Scorsese's own movies, and admitted the same they wouldn't be taken seriously.

It is also hard not to see his self-interest in many of his complaints. Whether it is when he talks about studios taking risks, where I'd argue putting blockbuster money into Thor or GOTG was far more risky for a studio at the time than any of his recent movies aside prior to the Irishman, or audience tastes, when he claims 'If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.' He would be justified in the latter complaint if every comic book movie was a success, but we've seen many cookie cutter superhero movie attempts fail miserably at the box office while also non-mainstream R rated efforts be hugely popular.

The whole thing is definitely a more nuanced effort on the subject than his earlier attempts but it still screams of a lack of self-reflection on his part. Like a lot of people, he takes the easier route to blame a faceless entity for his problems than trying to dig deeper on the issues.

pixelburp

The Late Late Show wrote: »

It is true there are many Westerns that are considered among the greatest ever made. Shane, High Noon, The Searchers, etc. regularly feature in lists of greatest films ever made.

Films like Bond and Marvel tend to divide audiences. But films like Iron Man I would call 'modern classics of their genre'. If you Google it, you can see it is very well received. On the other hand, Google 'Venom film' and you find it is not well received by most.

It is clear that there is a massive difference in quality in Marvel and Bond films. Some are excellent, some are quite poor. All will satisfy fans of the genre who are not overly critical but a handful will satisfy all. Iron Man is an example of a film that gains fans outside its target audience.

Importantly though, the Westerns that are generally lauded as classics, or held in high regard, typically are either the true deconstructionist ones - such as Unforgiven - or simply those that took a stale formula and applied a boisterous, anarchic energy to them - such as much of Sergio Leone's work. Old, hokey entertainment like Stagecoach is now (rightly?) seen as of its time, and flat, shallow entertainment. Loved sure, but not quite admired either.

Coincidentally, Logan was very much cut from the cloth of Western movies, but still managed to merge the sensibilities of those rougher, anarchic Westerns with its superhero identity. Compare that with MCU's "Winter Soldier", which itself borrowed iconography (and actors) from another genre, those old 1970s Cold War thrillers, yet it didn't really do anything with them, didn't have anything to say or add beyond "Spying on people is bad" - and of course the admittedly brilliant HYDRA twist.

That's where I believe the MCU sometimes falls a little short: it often borrows the superficial elements of genres, tropes or themes, but never explores, subverts or tries to deconstruct those themes. I know I know, there's nothing wrong with shallow entertainment and I'm not saying the MCU is bad because they don't, but the fact that across 23 films there has been no attempt to do this, it feels disappointing.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

He is entitled to his opinion but it is hard to take someone as being a credible judge when they admit that they've only 'tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me'.

Nah it's not, it's very easy to take him as a credible judge.

Also interesting to note that you always look to discredit him rather than refute what he has to say. Quite telling really.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Nah it's not, it's very easy to take him as a credible judge.

So you'd take someone as a credible judge of Scorsese's movies if they said that he is a terrible director while admitting that they only tried to watch a few of his movies?

Also interesting to note that you always look to discredit him rather than refute what he has to say. Quite telling really.

It is 'quite telling' that I clearly refuted two of Scorsese's key points in my post, however rather than trying to counter these you selectively deleted them when you responded...

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you'd take someone as a credible judge of Scorsese's movies if they said that he is a terrible director while admitting that they only tried to watch a few of his movies?

If all Scorsese's movie's were as indisputedly formulaic as Marvel's output i would yeah.

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is 'quite telling' that I clearly refuted two of Scorsese's key points in my post, however rather than trying to counter these you selectively deleted them when you responded...

Clearly refuted

The first one was an attempt to discredit the speaker, the second one is blatant false logic.

From the 30s to the 60s the vast amount of westerns, among other things, contributed to the vast demand for them. There were many unsuccessful westerns in this period, it in no way refutes the argument that the vast exposure to them created more demand.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

If all Scorsese's movie's were as indisputedly formulaic as Marvel's output i would yeah.

Many would actually dispute that and it is exactly why only trying to watch a few of them takes away most of his credibility.

Clearly refuted

Well maybe more accurately I clearly made an effort to refute his complaints, which you originally ignored in your response in lieu of a 'smart' comment You also continue to ignore my other point regarding his claims about studio risk.

The first one was an attempt to discredit the speaker, the second one is blatant false logic.

From the 30s to the 60s the vast amount of westerns, among other things, contributed to the vast demand for them. There were many unsuccessful westerns in this period, it in no way refutes the argument that the vast exposure to them created more demand.

So Westerns also aren't cinema then?

How many Marvel movies are out right now? How many are released this year and next compared to all other movies?

The audience aren't being 'sold one type of thing', like he complains, they're sold many types of things year round but buy much more the few times a year when Marvel is on the shelves. We see in this thread alone how people like to talk the talk about wanting other types of movies but then don't bother to go to the cinema when they are out, instead waiting until they can stream them at home. It is of course easier, and wiser for someone releasing a movie, to complain about the big boogeyman that many dislike than challenge the audience themselves for their own viewing choices.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

Many would actually dispute that and it is exactly why only trying to watch a few of them takes away most of his credibility.

He didn't 'only try', he saw enough of them to see the clear unmistakable pattern.

I'll take Marty's credibility over butthurt fanboys everytime.

Foxtrol wrote: »

So Westerns also aren't cinema then?

Haha, what a leap!

I believe you're the only person to make this statement, what do you think?

Foxtrol wrote: »

We see in this thread alone how people like to talk the talk about wanting other types of movies but then don't bother to go to the cinema when they are out, instead waiting until they can stream them at home. .

Was it not the Marvel fans on this thread saying they stayed at home those films are not suited to the big screen as the 'spectacle' movies?

Maybe i'm wrong on that one.

Marty wrote: »

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Absolute, 100% fact.

There is a feel of religious zealotry in the defense of the superhero stuff here. A kind of vested interest, that feels very corporate.

One of the best directors in history can't get a film made with the leading film studios, with a number of the best actors in the history of film. Its a sad state of affairs. Its not even worrying anymore, I was worried a few years ago. Its happened now and that is the lie of the land.

The bottom line is that the art is being taking out of cinema, and it needs to be viewed at home now instead because we dont have the opportunity as before to see it on the big screen. That is sad for some people from a different generation. Instead of assuming its old man shouting at cloud, it might actually be worth reflecting on what's happening, and how the art of filmmaking and realism, connection with audiences, great story writing etc is dying. There was indeed blockbuster movies going back to the 70's. But they were written by writers not by and for robots, that is the difference between todays blockbusters.

Sure great time and money goes into these movies. Plenty of hard work. The art of film is about something else in my eyes.

Greyfox

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Was it not the Marvel fans on this thread saying they stayed at home those films are not suited to the big screen as the 'spectacle' movies?

Marvel fans have said that but the problem is the people who want more original and serious films tend to be staying at home too.

Foxtrol

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

He didn't 'only try', he saw enough of them to see the clear unmistakable pattern.

Didn't know you sat with him while he watching the movies?

I'll take Marty's credibility over butthurt fanboys everytime.

Ah yes, attack the poster with a condescending comment. Seems to be a go to for many that agrees with Scorsese... 'quite telling really'.

Haha, what a leap!

I believe you're the only person to make this statement, what do you think?

Scorsese's defense of his 'aren't cinema' claims included the audience being 'sold one type of thing' and you likened it to Westerns previously impacting the market. I struggle to see how you can separate the two, either something that does that to the market supports it not being cinema or it doesn't.

Again, your selective quoting of my posts to avoid responding to my argument that that Scorsese's is fundementally wrong in his claim that they are only sold one type of thing say a lot about your actual interest in discussing the content of the op-ed.

Was it not the Marvel fans on this thread saying they stayed at home those films are not suited to the big screen as the 'spectacle' movies?

Maybe i'm wrong on that one.

A poster supporting Scorsese's point of view claimed something along the lines that there were no good movies released in the last few years, all blockbusters, and then went silent when confronted with a list of 'good movies'. Posters that have claimed they want to go to see more other types of movies have come up with a litany of excuses why they don't.

See your comment here is the nub of the problem in this discussion, you see people who disagree with Scorsese as 'Marvel fans' or 'butthurt fanboys'. People can both be fans of Scorsese and Marvel and both feel there are issues with the industry but disagree on the causes. Your condescension or superiority complex doesn't help the discussion at all.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a feel of religious zealotry in the defense of the superhero stuff here. A kind of vested interest, that feels very corporate.

One of the best directors in history can't get a film made with the leading film studios, with a number of the best actors in the history of film. Its a sad state of affairs. Its not even worrying anymore, I was worried a few years ago. Its happened now and that is the lie of the land.

Once again this argument ignores that the film in question that he had difficulty to fund costs as much as the blockbuster and apparently largely relies on CGI that has never been used to this extent (if it works he will largely have to thank the likes of MCU for fine-tuning this tool).

The bottom line is that the art is being taking out of cinema, and it needs to be viewed at home now instead because we dont have the opportunity as before to see it on the big screen. That is sad for some people from a different generation. Instead of assuming its old man shouting at cloud, it might actually be worth reflecting on what's happening, and how the art of filmmaking and realism, connection with audiences, great story writing etc is dying. There was indeed blockbuster movies going back to the 70's. But they were written by writers not by and for robots, that is the difference between todays blockbusters.

Sure great time and money goes into these movies. Plenty of hard work. The art of film is about something else in my eyes.

Same old excuses we see time and again in this thread. 'I'd really like to see these movies in the cinema but I'm not bothered to actually get up off my arse and go see them when they're there... Damn you Marvel, it is all your fault!!!!'

Tony EH

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

"Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."


Preach Marty!

Cheers for the link. It's a good read.

Another important quote that should be highlighted is below:

"So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters."

Homelander

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the best directors in history can't get a film made with the leading film studios, with a number of the best actors in the history of film. Its a sad state of affairs. Its not even worrying anymore, I was worried a few years ago. Its happened now and that is the lie of the land.

This repeatedly gets trotted out without the relevant context.

The correct version is as follows:

One of the best directors in history can't get a monsterously expensive film made with the leading film studios, with a number of excellent actors who are, in 2019, not remotely box office draws to justify a 'marvel' level price tag for a lengthy crime-drama piece.

I say that as a major Scorsese fan, can't wait to see The Irishman, but there's an absurd level of denial in the thread.

Doesn't matter if it's Scorsese, Spielberg, or whomever. $160M for what's considered a niche genre, lacking in box office draw power, is a major, major risk - hence no studio was willing to fund it.

$160M is a collosal sum of money. There are major blockbusters made that struggle to get half that funding, in 'mass market' friendly genres.

It's not a sad state of affairs or the lie of the current land, it's always been the lie of the land.

Can anyone point out a film in the crime genre that had a budget even remotely close to $160M at any point in cinematic history?

Adjusted for inflation, even a major, major film of its time, when both director and cast were at the height of their audience draw, Casino, cost half of The Irishman's budget.

Even Scorsese's own previous films in the genre, like The Departed, had much bigger casts and significantly smaller budgets, so let's not keep playing this "he can't get funding for his movie" card as if he's attempting to make some mid-budget production.

ErnestBorgnine

Foxtrol wrote: »

Didn't know you sat with him while he watching the movies?

I haven't, i've seen most of the Marvels thou and he's spot on in what he says.
Obviously very intelligent.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Ah yes, attack the poster with a condescending comment. Seems to be a go to for many that agrees with Scorsese... 'quite telling really'.

I didn't mention you in that post, that was directed at all the condescending "Old man yelling at clouds", "cranky old man", "he needs to shut his mouth" type of posts about The Great Man™ in this thread.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, your selective quoting of my posts to avoid responding to my argument that that Scorsese's is fundementally wrong in his claim that they are only sold one type of thing say a lot about your actual interest in discussing the content of the op-ed.

Marty namechecked Marvel, as they are the top dogs but really he was talking about all/or most modern franchises made by committee, as he made clear in the NYP article.
Here's the quote:

"They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption."

You seem to not have see it in my last post.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Your condescension or superiority complex doesn't help the discussion at all.

You've had a few condescending comments in this thread yourself my friend, as always pots and kettles.

And unless you've never in your life said a band or film is **** then no only do you have a superiority complex of your own but a huge big dollop of hypocrisy to go with it.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a feel of religious zealotry in the defense of the superhero stuff here. A kind of vested interest, that feels very corporate.

It's brand loyalty. You're hurting someone's chosen brand and therefore a defence is needed.

It's a triumph of studio marketing.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

Cheers for the link. It's a good read.

Another important quote that should be highlighted is below:

"So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters."

Again, how many superhero movies are currently in theatres and how many will be released this year compared to other movies? Audiences aren't being 'sold one type of thing', they're being offered many things and are choosing superhero movies when they're good.

Pointing the finger at big bad boogeyman Marvel is lazy for the cause of this.