1y ago

Martin Scorsese urges filmmakers to fight comic book movie culture: ‘We’ve got to save cinema’

www.latimes.com Martin Scorsese urges filmmakers to fight comic book movie culture: ‘We’ve got to save cinema’

Martin Scorsese wants filmmakers to 'save cinema' by fighting comic book movie culture, which he called manufactured content.

Martin Scorsese is urging filmmakers to save cinema, by doubling down on his call to fight comic book movie culture.

The storied filmmaker is revisiting the topic of comic book movies in a new profile for GQ. Despite facing intense blowback from filmmakers, actors and the public for the 2019 comments he made slamming the Marvel Cinematic Universe films — he called them theme parks rather than actual cinema — Scorsese isn’t shying away from the topic.

“The danger there is what it’s doing to our culture,” he told GQ. “Because there are going to be generations now that think ... that’s what movies are.”

GQ’s Zach Baron posited that what Scorsese was saying might already be true, and the “Killers of the Flower Moon” filmmaker agreed.

“They already think that. Which means that we have to then fight back stronger. And it’s got to come from the grassroots level. It’s gotta come from the filmmakers themselves,” Scorsese continued to the outlet. “And you’ll have, you know, the Safdie brothers, and you’ll have Chris Nolan, you know what I mean? And hit ’em from all sides. Hit ’em from all sides, and don’t give up. ... Go reinvent. Don’t complain about it. But it’s true, because we’ve got to save cinema.”

Scorsese referred to movies inspired by comic books as “manufactured content” rather than cinema.

“It’s almost like AI making a film,” he said. “And that doesn’t mean that you don’t have incredible directors and special effects people doing beautiful artwork. But what does it mean? What do these films, what will it give you?”

His forthcoming film, “Killers of the Flower Moon,” had been on Scorsese’s wish list for several years; it’s based on David Grann’s 2017 nonfiction book of the same name. He called the story “a sober look at who we are as a culture.”

The film tells the true story of the murders of Osage Nation members by white settlers in the 1920s. DiCaprio originally was attached to play FBI investigator Tom White, who was sent to the Osage Nation within Oklahoma to probe the killings. The script, however, underwent a significant rewrite.

“After a certain point,” the filmmaker told Time, “I realized I was making a movie about all the white guys.”

The dramatic focus shifted from White’s investigation to the Osage and the circumstances that led to them being systematically killed with no consequences.

The character of White now is played by Jesse Plemons in a supporting role. DiCaprio stars as the husband of a Native American woman, Mollie Kyle (Lily Gladstone), an oil-rich Osage woman, and member of a conspiracy to kill her loved ones in an effort to steal her family fortune.

Scorsese worked closely with Osage Principal Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear and his office from the beginning of production, consulting producer Chad Renfro told Time. On the first day of shooting, the Oscar-winning filmmaker had an elder of the nation come to set to say a prayer for the cast and crew.

260 comments

I mean, he's not wrong. But there has always been a ton of shitty action movies with the same cut and paste plot. Marvel just tweaked the formula.
And it's not like good movies aren't still being made. The Marvel movies are historically bad at winning awards. There have been a handful of nominations, but not a lot of wins. The wins always go to good movies that deserve them.
Sure, the Marvel movies pull in more money than other movies, but the money makers are usually trash. Marvel is like the McDonald's of movies. It's going to pull in way more money than a fine dining establishment, but not because it's good, because it's the garbage that the public will take out their wallet for. There is space in the market for both of these things.
- There is space in the market for both of these things.
  Not so sure about that, and that might be the problem. Marvel/Disney is both rather monocultural and a ridiculously huge draw and brand that can suck the oxygen out of the marketing ecosystem. It could be true that the comic cinema industry is genuinely taking eyes off of other things and creating a less diverse cinema experience per capita. Even if for most people it's only marginal, a slightly alternative take on an action or hero film with a slightly different angle or message or style is still diversity that might be important and valuable.
  It would be interesting to compare this to the action and block buster movies of the past. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that there was a noticeable diversity and I'm going to say thoughtfulness amongst big films of the past compared to today. I'm open to being wrong of course, but it's worth thinking about, just because big-corp monopolisation can easily have these effects.
  I'm partly influenced by a recent rewatch of Jurassic Park and noticing how subtly thoughtful it was while also being basically a straight action film (after the set up at least). There's even a moment (when they first see the raptors being fed) that's basically kinda vegan message or at least a critique or contrast between humans and "the monsters" of the film, done entirely but very clearly through editing and directing ... it was really nice actually.
  
  You're wrong.
  But to be clear, when you say "the past" you are talking about maybe twenty years. Thirty, tops.
  Because people WERE in fact saying this about Star Wars. The notion that the new Hollywood brats were turning it into a commercial dystopia was very much a thing. So the old school action films you're talking about are the blockbusters ranging from 1978 to maybe 2000 when the Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man films start building momentum for comic book movies.
  Before then you're in Old Hollywood territory, where the "action" stuff is pulp and exploitation in the margins. The status quo you remember is late 20th century kids bringing the crappy b-list stuff they grew up with into big money blockbuster fare.
- In the late-70s/80s it was slasher movies. In the 80s/90s it was Rambo-style action movies, or Lethal Weapon and Fatal Attraction-style thrillers.
  There have always been Hollywood bandwagons.
  The difference is that back then the major studios made a bunch of films of all scopes and budgets, while today those same studios make fewer, more expensive movies.
  If Scorsese was a young man today - or Robert Altman or William Friedkin, whoever - he probably wouldn't get a chance to make a Raging Bull, he'd be steered towards a superhero film with - of course - NO final cut. The one exception is Christopher Nolan. And even he did an entire superhero TRILOGY.
  Taking what Marty is saying and putting it another way - major studio content is not driven by a director's creative vision in the current environment, but by producers... the suits and their market research.
  
  Taking what Marty is saying and putting it another way - major studio content is not driven by a director’s creative vision in the current environment, but by producers… the suits and their market research.
  I'm by no means an expert but was that ever different? Making movies always was very expensive, so the people in charge obviously had to have money and then try to use that to make more money. That alone leads to rather conservative decisions regarding which movies should be produced and which shouldn't. Artistic merit isn't something I believe ever had much sway in Hollywood unless some directors actually used their previous success to bully the rich cats in charge to trust them or outright finance the movie themself. And that I guess is rather rare. I think the only thing really different today, is that market research today is way more advanced than it was in the 60's or 70's.
- Look, I didn't love Guardians 3, it's a conservative, Christian movie and I don't agree with most of its premises.
  But there wasn't a dry eye in the house by the end of that, and I'm pretty sure most of them know what "it meant", and it certainly wasn't "almost like AI making a film". Ditto for Across the Spider-Verse, whcih is a progressive movie I do agree with.
  There's always been this argument that successfull movies are bad, and I've never liked it. It's never been true. There are tons of bad films that make their money back, but for every Air Force One there is a Die Hard or Back to the Future (more conservative movies I don't agree with but are very well made, go figure).
  So yeah, I do agree that Oscar bait keeps Oscar baiting, and that superheroes aren't killing cinema, which is a hard take to roll with this year in particular. But no, I actively don't think superhero movies or genre movies are worthless or trash, any more than I think westerns are trash or action movies are trash.
  
  How is Guardians 3 a conservative Christian movie? You know the director, James Gunn, is very outspokenly progressive, right?
  
  Right on, those are some very fair points. I guess calling them trash is a bit far.
  But out of genuine curiosity, could you expand on how the movies you mentioned are conservative Christian movies? I know Die Hard takes place on Christmas, but that's all I'm picking up.
  
  TIL that somehow it makes sense to consider the classic back to the future somehow a fucking conservative movie. LMAO might wanna lay off whatever heavy drug you'd been ingesting

I love his movies, but this feels like an "Old Man Yells at Cloud" story.
- C'mon bro-- comic book movies have even ruined comic book movies at this point 😅
  
  The thing is though, Low effort, high special effect action, action over plot moviesis nothing new, before marvel it was transformers and so on all the way back to shoot em up westerns at the dawn of cinema.
  Its not like before the MCU, you're average movie goer was watching super artistic cerebral movies, and comic book movies took that all away, like this guy is acting
  
  Bad movies are bad movies. Many movies are adapted from tv, books, and fairy tales. The only thing special about comic book movies is that they are all based on existing stories that have accompanying artwork. There are important scenes, moments captured in time, and I could understand how an auteur might feel hamstrung by the existing imagery.
  But how is that different from making a pirate movie, where everyone looks and talks like Long John Silver? Or a gangster movie where everyone dresses and talks like James Cagney?
  If he's complaining about big budget CG action flicks, those aren't specific to comic book movies, either. Avatar, Mission Impossible, Inception, Planet of the Apes, shit go back to Towering Inferno or the old Harryhausen movies. People want spectacle, wonder, and adventure. That's not new. That's why the comics exist in the first place.
  If he's complaining about studios churning out blockbusters and crowding the release calendar, yeah that's got to be frustrating. Just pick a weekend right after a DC release, and you'll do fine.
- It absolutely is yelling at clouds.
  They're just fun scifi westerns, not the end of cinema.
  
  It's just a catchy headline to mask the real point of this article: to advertise his new movie.
- Man who makes only gangster movies angry at people who make only superhero movies.

"Let's get back to making movies about the mafia!" lol
- God, I got so bored watching The Irishman in 2019. I still cannot fathom why he would make another 90's movie that late in the game. Grow up already. Also, who has time to watch a 3,5 hour movie? Geriatrics and boomers, that's who. Thank you for sitting through my rant.
  
  I mean, I'm a millenial and I'll happily sit though a 3 hour plus film if it's good. Oppenheimer was three hours and zipped by it's so well paced. This says more about you and your peers wrecked attention spans due to social media than the films.
- yeah, really. I don't give a shit about the movies he makes, that's why I don't watch them.

Huh, I remember reading his critique around when Endgame was coming out and thought he just didn't get it.
Now, after years of the shit the MCU has been pushing out, I see he was ahead of our time.
- The multiverse could have been so cool, but they went about it ass backwards. They introduce Kaang in a 'quiet' part of the overall story, where no one really has any stakes and we have little investment in anyone's stories. Everyone is kinda doing their own things, mainly dealing with the aftermath of Endgame. Even Spider-Man, who we should be feeling protective of, decides to have a reset. We didn't care about Kaang because we no long had an investment in any character.
  Then we're supposed to feel scared of Kaang? And then in >!Quantumania they straight up just strip him of all mystique to the point the end shot of that movie is just comical with the arena full of Kaang's making the character have 0 remaining intrigue. !< Even had the stuff with Masters not happened they'd lost their chances to make it interesting. Paired with Skrull just not really resonating with the audience at all, it has been misstep after misstep.
  !imo the only way you fix it now is have Doom come in the the F4, outright murder Kaang as the actual universal badass and then switch back to the personal less connected stories to tell a series of Invasion stories as the universe crumbles. Lead up to Fox-verse Vs MCU showdown. Then have a battleworld at the end of it and just reset the whole thing.!<
  Basically, in trying to make a mainstream product they've ended up with something no one really cares about.
  
  The thing about the MCU is that there is very little consequences, there is a giant corpse in the ocean for the last 2 years unmentioned.
  We could have done something cool like an out there doctor strange movie where things were a little unexpected and off only for a grand reveal that this wasn't our doctor strange, that it was an alternative version in a different. Big twists like that could have done something that could only be done with the multiverse.
  All that said it is pure fluff, I put it on when I want to tv on not when I want to watch a movie.
- He was right then too. Nothing has changed
- I was bitterly disappointed even by Endgame. All flash and no substance.
  For me, all these movies rely on stakes and villains. As soon as you start fucking around with time nothing has any stakes any more. You can undo anything. Also Josh Brolin doesn't have the screen presence required for a big bad.
  Compare to original Iron Man. Jeff Bridges fills the screen, dominating every scene with cartoonish meme potential. Hugo Weaving, Tom Hiddleston, even Michael Keaton have it... Josh is missing something. He's not a bad actor by any means, but some roles just aren't for him.
  I think Guardians of the Galaxy is the only MCU franchise that doesn't hinge on the villain, and it's actually their most consistent series of movies. Even if the game has made me annoyed at the movies just making Drax and Mantis into fucking morons.

People who disparage Marty forget or don't know that he has been a fierce proponent and heavy financial supporter of film restoration through companies like Milestone Films for more than three decades now. If you ever enjoyed world cinema, the films of Kalatozov, Pasolini, Buñuel, Murnau and many more, there is a decent chance you were able to enjoy them in good quality through the direct efforts of Martin Scorsese and others.
“Because there are going to be generations now that think … that’s what movies are.”
should be understood in this context as well. We owe him so much gratitude for keeping the language of film alive.
- BUT HE INSULTED MARVEL 😠 😡 😡 FUCK HIM AND HIS PRETENTIOUS BULLSHIT! HE'S JUST MAD THAT MARVEL MAKES BILLIONS

It's been that way for a loooong time.
Movies became so expensive to produce that studios can't finance them themselves.
So they turned to the banks.
Banks are by nature risk averse.
So a production company has to submit an application to their bank's movie financing department like you would when applying for a home loan.
The bank decides whether to finance the movie based on the information submitted: Script, subject matter, director, which stars have committed to the project, etc.
Now if you imagine, people from the banking industry are not artists and creatives and visionaries. They just look at raw investment potential, i.e. Is this proposed production going to pay off the loan with interest?
If there's any risk, e.g. this has never been done before, or there's no recognizable franchise branding, or if something could be controversial in a meaningful way, the bank won't approve the production loan.
So sequels, brand name franchises, with writing committees, are easier to get approvals from the banks, therefore are more likely to make it into production.
That's why Hollywood doesn't make daring, experimental, and controversial movies much anymore.
- Capitalism ruins everything.
  
  Enshittification doesn't just happen to online platforms.
- And it's not just movies.
  Hit song analysis systems like Platinum Blue, aka Music XRay, use algorithms to compare new songs to hit songs of the past to rate the chances that they will become hits themselves.
  This is why all new songs sound the same and there are so many cover versions.
  New songs are scored by hit song analysis system(s) and have to achieve a high score showing how much they resemble previous hit songs before money is allocated for promotion.
  
  That's... really sad
- and that will end too. look how Disney is giving so many flops. Especially the Marvel division. comic book fatigue has already started
  
  If marvel stopped after endgame it would have still arguably been art. Movies have always been a cash grab to some extent, but at least those movies were inspired.
  I don't think Scorsese is wrong necessarily, but there're a lot of old man yells at cloud vibes happening. He still makes movies he wants but he's butthurt he doesn't get the accolades he did in his heyday?
  People's tastes ebb and flow and this will "correct" eventually. I mean, punk rock happened because rock and disco got so overwrought and bland in the 70s. Cinema will evolve but I'm willing to bet it'll be into something Scorsese hates before noir esque gangster films are de rigeur again
  
  Lmao I had comic book movie fatigue back in 2004, and quit watching movies entirely in 2009, after watching one too many remakes
  
  I still enjoy comic book movies when they're good. The problem is they're trying too hard to make all the characters quippy and that gets old. Not everyone needs to be Spider-Man. You can still make serious movies about comic book stories. The worst one I saw was Ragnarok. I didn't bother with love and thunder but heard it was even worse.
- So in a way it's going right back to the way things were during the Golden Age of Hollywood. I hope this means more musicals are on the way.

I mean, can't we just have both? On some days I want to see a silly lighthearted action movie and on some days I want to see a heart wrenching story about the deepest darkest recesses of the human mind. It's not a zero sum game.
- We've just had the highest grossin opening weekend with Barbenhiemer.
  Yes, we can have both. They need to have both otherwise they are only accomodating part of their audience.
- The Barbie movie is a perfect example of the balance of pinache and meaning, and mainstream movies ought to learn from that.
  
  And that lead actress, whoever she is, should totally get an Oscar for her performance this year.
- Something can be lighthearted or action based and still be interesting film making in contrast to the paint by numbers MCU films and some others.
  It's pure action, but Fury Road is an example of a simple action movie that had thought put into the editing, cinematography, etc. Barbie is light hearted but similarly had some ideas to play with.
- It literally is a zero sum game. Studios dump all their money into these types of movies and there's no money left over for the "story about the deepest darkest recesses of the human mind."
  
  And yet A24 exists and continues to find success.
  
  You are assuming that if Marvel movies didn't exist everyone would just go watch Requiem for a Dream instead, which is just silly. They target different audiences and the same people could choose to see one today and the other tomorrow. It's not like Oppenheimer was made by a bunch of indies scraping money on Kickstarter.
  
  disney isn't the only one funding movies.
  your regular $15m arty pantsy black and white movie isn't paid for the mouse.

My take on it is eventually viewers will tire of the genre, and it will fade out into the background like most other genres. Dramas were all the rage in the 40s, Westerns were very popular in the 50s, in the 70s and 80s you have disaster films and pure action type stuff that was incredibly popular, the 90s had the start of some very popular independent films, and the late 90s and early aughts had a lot of popular fantasy/epics and animation films.
None of those genres completely went away, and some have had resurgence from time to time. Comic based movies won't be dominating forever. There was and still are a lot of complaints about the movies made in the previous couple decades, and I think it says something that people are finding these comic stories so compelling. I think "Hollywood" needs to look in a mirror to remind themselves why these types of movies have became so popular... is it just everyone attached to beautiful art and special effects? Or is it perhaps that maybe their storytelling wasn't as great, or original as they thought, and they are losing out to stories written decades ago because they are just simply more interesting?
- Yeah, people remember a handful of classic war movies or westerns and think that era was magical but for every great film there was a hundred terrible cookie cutter cash grabs.
  I would love to see some more directors focus on making great art but the reality is that's incredibly hard.
- I'm already tired.. Spiderman gets recycled ever so often because of the license they have, then the multi verse was fine the few first movies but gets annoying after, then you get super heroes that only hard fans know and no one else.
  
  I actually think the multiverse concept is a super annoying and obvious cash grab. At no point did I think "oh cool these movies connect". From the first moment to me it read as "oh they're planning to make 100 movies and tying them together is just a tactic to con people into seeing all 100 the same way people have watched plenty of sequels they know will suck, but they just want to finish the trilogy". Then the first time I heard it referred to as the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" I threw up in my mouth. I'll never understand how people didn't get bored and jaded after... 10 years max. We're now sailing past 20 years from where I see this as all starting and it's still some of the most popular shit of all time.
- I feel like technology has changed things a lot. In the past when there was tube TVs with crappy resolution and poor quality sound you had to go to a theater for good quality picture and sound. Now TVs are good enough that if you're going to watch a 3 1/2 hour long movie about some gangsters in their 70s reminiscing about a hit they did many decades before, you're better off watching it at home. Why would someone want to go to the theater for that?
  Now people go to the theater for the spectacle. Big event movies that people get dressed in costumes for. Movies with big effects that their home TV and sound system just won't give as good an experience.
  Serious dramas? I'm not getting anything more from watching it at the theater than I'm going to get at home on my TV.
  And why is that a bad thing? A modern 4K TV with even just a speaker bar probably gives a better viewing experience than people had when they watched Taxi Driver in the theaters in 1976.
  
  It's definitely an issue, but it's not an unworkable one. Villeneuve films for exemple, while a bit hit-or-miss on the characters, definitely use the format in a way where you loose something if you watch it on TV instead of in a theater.

I hate super hero movies ..do you know what I do? I don't watch them..there's nothing to be saved ...studios will stop making those terrible movies once people stop watching them..if there is a lot of audience there's no meaning in stop producing..
- Damn, and here's Scorsese who cant help but keep watching these movies. Why didn't he think of not watching them?

I don't think that's true. While the newest MCU movie were not doing as well as they were before, outside these main cinematic universe there have been some great recent comic book movies: the two Spiderverse movies are such absolute delights and some of the best animated movies ever made, and "The Batman" and "Joker" are fantastic as well. (Let's... not talk about the DCEU.)
I wonder if he would consider "The Departed" to be "manufactured content" by his own definition as well, considering the fact it is much more than merely "inspired" by "Infernal Affairs". Just sayin'.

He's right. Not that comic book movies are bad but how they are made is bad (also other movies nowadays). Batman trilogy is magnificent and I don't like comic books.. It's all about constant action and no plot and thrilling parts to graduate the plot. You don't need bambilion of explosions to have a good movie (Joker).
- Also I think that part of the problem is CGI. Before CGI movie makers needed to take the shot for the first time (cause money) so everyone was max concentrated and gave everything into their performance. Also everything needed to be precise to make sense. Nowadays it doesn't matter.. Just do few shots in front of green screen and we'll do the rest.
  Of course there are exceptions, but the mainstream money-making machine is taking this movie soul-sucking path to produce quantity not quality in order to make piles of money. They don't care about art.
- If I'm paying $25 to watch a movie on a giant screen, it better have explosions and other shiny shit to justify the price.
  I can watch other films at home.
  
  Lol people like you think this way and then you wonder why we elect fascists like Donald Trump. 😆

Remember that Martin Scorsese's last big movie was The Irishman, so he isn't saving the movie industry either.
Also, Hugo was based on a comic book, so kind of hypocritical.
- Notice how there wasn’t 11 sequels and offshoots to Hugo?
  
  Notice how Hugo was a flop? Those facts are not mutually exclusive.
  
  The thing I like about the MCU is the shared continuity. I appreciate when the styles differ from the standard as well, but I don't view multiple sequels and offshoots as a bad thing inherently.
  Generally, the issue he's talking about isn't caused by comic book movies. It completely predates the modern comic book movie. Comic books are just the current medium for that style of story telling. In the 80s and 90s it was body builder action movies. The 90s and 00s focused more on the slasher film. Now it's comic book movies.
  I honestly think Scorsese is more upset that he personally is having a more difficult time getting backing for his films due to the limited commercial success of his films lately and he's blaming the viewer and producers rather than looking at himself.
- Also, Hugo was based on a comic book …
  More an illustrated novel than a comic book. Also, there are great ~~comic books~~ graphic novels. I feel that his criticism is more of the formulaic and shallow plot and characters frequently associated with comic books, rather than the medium itself.

Couldn't agree more. I enjoyed some of the superhero movies from the early 2000s because they had good stories, they were clearly made by people passionate about them and they felt novel at the time. Things went downhill over the next decade or so and then I saw The Avengers and thought it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen and couldn't understand why anyone would like it. Further, the people who did like it, all told me the same thing, that you need to watch half a dozen other movies first. Why? Who in their right mind makes that decision as a producer? The Avengers is a movie with no character arcs, no plot build up, no introduction, and nothing the characters do feels like it has any weight and you know they're more or less invincible. It's boring garbage and people love it to death. I haven't really watched many superhero movies since, especially Marvel.
- Who in their right mind makes that decision as a producer?
  Business-people obviously and sadly. I mean movies have always been a business first, but since there are now basically only 2 or three large companies left with a much larger share of the income they can much better predict the expected income. Everything becomes more efficient. Before with thousands of little studios competing each individual project was kind of hustling around in all kinds of directions. It was hit or miss at random basically. And a small studio doesn't do focus-grouping in order to increase a movies financial success - that would be much too expensive for a small project. Those things only make sense financially if your movie is fairly large OR your company already has a well oiled marketing-department that focus-groups for basically every movie automatically. But with focus-groups you obviously always aim for what most people like. It's like the lowest denominator. That's why so many things feel so boring in marvel/disney-productions. There's no too room for random happy accidents.
  I still have hopes for cinema though, since the incredible rise of the A24 brand in recent years for me is a clear signal that people are fed up with this marvel/disney-monoculture-assembly-line that clogges up the cinemas. One major aspect of the disney-death-star is that Disney basically prevents other productions from materializing. They even prevent some of their own projects from materializing as their planning shows them that N large movies a year is about the most they can extract from the movie-going audience. So they will not produce more big budget blockbusters, because that would only waste money. (If that doesn't make sense think about this: the more blockbuster you release each year the less it will be watched as you reach a saturation at a certain point. As a studio you try to release big-budget movies at times at which they don't have to compete with similar movies. Disney being the biggest player - aka the "disney-death-star" that has gobbled up pixar/marvel/star-wars and the entire 20th century fox IP/franchises - is defining what is and isn't possible to be released during a year (and making a profit with reasonable likelihood)).
  Similar with competitors: They know that their big budget movie will have to compete with e.g. Marvels new this-and-that that weekend (or another Disney release at another time) and will not produce a movie. Disney is clogging up the cinemas with their grey goo.
  A24 simply made movies that are different and not aimed at everyone. That simple idea was e extremely radical.
- Who in their right mind makes that decision as a producer?
  A producer who wants to make billions?
- there isn't a finite amount of film, why not let people who enjoy superhero movies watch superhero movies? why are these fucking directors compelled to curate what the industry produces? I'm guessing he got his budget rejected and blamed action flicks.
- Further, the people who did like it, all told me the same thing, that you need to watch half a dozen other movies first. Why?
  Eff that! Those people dont understand superhero comics. Nobody who picks up a Spider-Man comic starts back at the beginning, back in 1962. What makes Marvel comics interesting to those who enjoy Marvel comics is that despite the comic being about one (or a team) superhero, it feels like theres events happening in the background, and past and future events that has happened and shaped the character. Their world feels more alive because you might not know what happened in another comic series but still get references to it. MCU manages to do this in miniature. You CAN watch every movie, but you shouldnt have to. The story stands alone despite there being references to stuff that you might not know about. And that makes it better than DCU movies.
  I dont want to go back to boring, stand-alone movies with generic loser action heroes who can do superhero stuff like taking down jet planes despite pretending not to have superhero powers, and a sequel after another sequel then reboot. I mean, someone recently complained about getting tired of the John Wick movies.. Like we've gotten 4 movies. 2 hours every second year isnt something to get tired of.. 7 years of 20 episodes each is getting close to tiresome, if you enjoy it like you said you did.
  I want a continious story in a continious world. I find that fun entertainment. And I'm sad that some Oscar-baiting movie producer think this isnt what movies can be.
  
  Gross, I can't get behind a single thing you said.

What we really need is a nonprofit organization that rents out equipment and set space to directors so they don't have to turn to big movie studios to get their projects made.
And we need federated online independent movie portals so people know where to find them.
- I would be willing to fund something with tax dollars for art grants. Heck it could even be a low or zero interest loan if they want to profit on it.

Remember before Marvel movies, when we had such hits as Encino Man, Problem Child, Speed 2: Cruise Control, and and Cocktail? I've got news for you, Marty, cinema has been killing cinema since the dawn of cinema, and yet cinema survives. There will always be movies that someone doesn't like that make a FUCK ton of money. Then there will be the passion projects that gain a cult following decades after the fact. If you are lucky, you get a little of both sides of the coin, but most aren't. Get off your high-art horse and enjoy some escapism, not everyone has a 9 figure net worth, some of us need to forget how much life sucks and watch a guy with a hammer beat alien skulls into paste.
- Hey now, let’s leave Encino Man out of this.
  
  No wheezing the juice!
- That just sounds like immature drivel from someone angry they're being called out for not thinking about anything.
  The existence of low-quality garbage does not justify its existence and the fact is that post-endgame Marvel movies SUCK. And they suck because they do not follow basic rules of plot, building up suspense, meaningful stakes and other important shit the rabble either forgot about or never knew.
  And the fact remains that Americans are suffering because they're not being exposed to high-level ideas in movies, one of the kinds of entertainment they consume the most, and being actively discouraged from thinking by and large through arguments of your own intended to justify their ignorance to avoid emotional hurt. It's hurting us as a people. Art isn't there solely to entertain, it's there to teach you things and make you think, and one of the things Americans badly need to learn is that life isn't all about being entertained and having fun. You have to be willing to put on your big boy pants and actually think.
  The fact that there is even a dichotomy between enjoyable movies and movies that make audiences think is what should be upsetting people right now, not Martin Scorsese pointing out truths that make you feel bad.
  Grow up.
  
  Dude. You need to lay off the caffeine or whatever it is. That was actually insane.
- some of us need to forget how much life sucks and watch a guy with a hammer beat alien skulls into paste.
  Whoa. I think you're late for your shrink. Don't forget to take your meds. My life doesn't suck or at least not that bad.
  
  I’ll save you a trip to your shrink and armchair-diagnose you with NPD.

heres the thing, comic book movies as a concept arent bad but theyre executed terribly. disney and dc both fucking suck horrendously, thwyre unbearable

It's kind of amusing that he mentioned Christopher Nolan as a possible ally in his grassroots campaign of filmmakers extolling the virtues of cinema. Christopher Nolan who made a massive comic book movie trilogy. That Christopher Nolan?
- I don't believe that The Dark Knight trilogy can be compared to anything from Marvel. They are miles ahead in cinematography, directon, use of practical special effects, writing, etc. And there wasn't 20+ TDK movies.
- Christopher Nolan’s Batman is cut from a different cloth though.
  It’s far better than anything Marvel’s ever put out, and isn’t confined to being good “comic superhero movies”, they’re just good movies to the point that even my mother loves the dark knight.
- The fact that you find those movies to be comparable to marvel ones kind of disqualifies all future opinions of yours lol
  
  They are literally comparable as they are both in the same genre this article is about. You realise Batman is a comic book character, and that the article is about comic book movies, yeah? I said nothing about the quality between the two.

What a coincidence that he's got a movie that's "fighting back" checks watch* oh right about now! 🙄
Not only is this ridiculous (and untrue) fearmongering about the death of "real cinema" from an old man scared for his own relevance, it's such blatant self-promotion it's sickening. Dude would be better served being silent and maintaining his (admittedly deserved) reputation and prestige in the art form instead of tarnishing it with foolish declarations like this.
- The Irishman got 9 Oscar nominations so I'm not really sure he's "fighting for his own relevance."
- "old man scared of his own relevance" being said about one of the greatest directors of all time and probably the greatest alive. Ffs man...
  
  First, I never said he was irrelevant. I said he's scared that he is. Second, past accomplishments don't negate current or future accountability for dumb statements like his.
- Truth truth truth
- You're wrong and Martin scorcese is right. First of all, he's Martin scorcese and you're not. Also, he speaks the truth and you're not. He's articulating exactly what I started feeling around 2003. I get so much shit for not liking superhero movies despite them being absolute dog shit. Nice to finally feel like I'm not the only one.
  
  Are you old, too?

Those comic book movies are keeping theaters open, so there are screens even in existence to show Scorsese movies. He ought to be grateful.
- That's not really true though, we're forgetting this now because covid really shuffled things, but it was getting impossible for anything lower budget than a blockbuster to get screentime because of how many screens were contractually obligated to Disney and Marvel. They had really insane power for a few years, after all if you don't show their movie almost exclusively for an extended period they might not let you show it at all.
  Something like the Irishman probably had a better shot dealing with indie theaters that normally oscillate between playing cult classics and the festival scene movies than with multiplexes.
- marvel fans 2 seconds after Martin Scorsese says something
  
  Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
  marvel fans 2 seconds after Martin Scorsese says something
  Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
  I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
- My dude reads the Barbie comics. Respect.

Once X-Men hit at the box office, all the movie studios snatched up every single comic property they could get their greedy little hands on.

This is no different than an old man ranting that music was better in his day.
- I think movies and music have developed differently with rise of technology. The barrier to entry for making music and having it become popular has dramatically changed. You could in theory make a short song, have it go viral on the short videos (Tiktok, IG Reels, YT Shorts, etc) and you can in theory become a household name.
  You don't need a big company mediating that. Anyone with a shitty laptop and some free time can take a go at this.
  Movies? Not so much. A movie requires millions of dollars and then requires big companies to handle distribution, advertisement, production, etc.
  This difference creates a sort of competition in the music industry, keeping the record companies in check whereas that simply doesn't exist in the movie industry. They are different animals. If independent movie makers could easily make successful movies without big companies, then I think it would be different.
  Having said all that, Talk To Me was made by a couple of YouTubers and that is having a lot of success and honestly is a great movie. So maybe it's changing in the movie industry too
  
  It's highly unlikely some of those YouTubers don't have very wealthy connections or family.
- Movies have shifted from dialogue and storytelling to glitter and flash. The depth of content is not what it used to be.
  
  We can continue the music analogy again, if you'd like.

The answer is obviously more de-aged De Niro. We must determine how young he can play so I say we remake Three Men and a Baby with De Niro playing the baby. Quick, somebody call Steve Guttenberg!

The movie business has been dog shit for a long time now. Whether they continue making these shitty movies makes no difference at the end of the day.
- Only listens to top 40 drive time radio:
  "Music today is dogshit."
  Don't confuse your uninformed opinion with reality.
  
  Sounds like you’re upset that someone is calling your movies trash. Get over it and get better.
- Is there a time when it wasnt? I dont believe the average movie was less shitty back then either. It is just that the best movies survive our memories and in our culture, so the past might seem more classy from here.
  
  You could be right. But I distinctly remember there being a lot more enjoyable movies from the 90s. I’ve noticed that the format changed quite a bit between movies in the 90s vs movies today. Movie makers figured out a formula that maximizes their return on investment, but to me that has limited the depth and variability between movies these days. The exact same can be said about the music industry as well. To be me the more interesting movies/bands tend to be the obscure ones, which modern industry has strategically eliminated.
  In other words some of the best and most interesting movies I’ve watched came from the 90s where those movies did poorly in the box office.
  Movie makers today are only interested in making movies that perform well in the box office and so they take less risks. The lack of those risks means making movies that only fit a certain format. In my opinion that format gets old.

He has a point and i would personally always prefer one of his movies over anything Marvel/DC but just let people enjoy what they want, Jesus.
And what actually saved the cinemas sure wasn't Hugo or his Netflix film Irishman but all those multi billion comic book blockbusters. Not sure how many cinemas would still exist without them.
- Only three of the top ten movies this year are comic book movies. One of them, GotG 3, could easily be a sci-fi movie franchise if you didn't have its roots as a D-list comic book series. Another one, Into the Spiderverse, is a sequel of a movie that is considered to be the first in a new style of animated movie.
  And a long, windy introspective of a flawed man is #4, it just happens to be about a physicist instead of a mobster.
  People are able to make movies, but his kind of movies shifted to prestige TV a while ago.
  
  Okay, what's your point exactly?

People removed about it, and its because Martin is 100% right. Comic book things are collapsing now at Disney.

Not every film can be a cinematic masterpiece. I wouldn't want to watch nothing but masterpieces, it would be exhausting. On the flip side, there can absolutely be comic book movies that are masterpieces. Logan comes to mind.
- Logan was certainly a great movie, but a lot of what made it great were the years we had spent with the characters. Without that the movie wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. The fact that we knew what wolverine and professor x were once capable of, and then seeing them in their present state, really helped set the backdrop for the movie.
- Guardians of the galaxy 3 was absolutely amazing on every level!
  Comic book movies can be good. What Martin Scorsese means to say is woke culture is ruing good story telling.
  Just write good story's and don't be an asshole.

Luckily, Disney is way ahead of him on ruining comic book movies.

He's forgetting movie history...
Back when television got big, cinema had to evolve to survive. The aspect ratio went wide.
This Is Cinerama was more of a tech demo than anything else in 1952, but it was followed by widescreen movie, movies in 1953 with "The Robe" being shot and shown in Cinemascope.
Technicolor too gave a more vibrant color scheme even than previous color film processing that actually came a generation prior, in 1932.
But the widescreen/Technicolor combination provided a must see experience that were the event films of the era and they couldn't be duplicated at home.
Roll forward 50 years... home theater technology has evolved to a point where theater has to compete with 65" 4K television displays and 7.1 Dolby Atmos surround sound. People need a reason to leave their homes and deal with noisy, disease infected, crowds, high concession prices, expensive tickets, and annoyances like having to pre-pick your own seats instead of just walking in and sitting down.
Streaming is keeping people at home, being able to binge long form content, pausing when necessary. Cinema can't provide that experirnce.
So it's going the other way, the "theme park ride experience". It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the first Pirates of the Carribean movie hit in 2003, pre-dating the wave of comic book movies by, what? 5 or 6 years? 50 years after the first Cinerama movies?
But even that has roots going back to Jurassic Park (1993), Star Wars (1977), and Jaws (1975).
Now, don't get me wrong, I dearly love "small" films like Scorsese's After Hours, or even modern stuff like Wes Anderson's Asteroid City, but there is ZERO compelling reason to see them in a theater. I can get the same experience viewing them on my home theater setup without, you know, blowing $50 to sit in a noisy, uncomfortable theater.
To do THAT, I NEED a spectacle. I need to see something that demands I see it right away, in a theatrical environment. It needs to be a theme park ride.
If your end goal is to make a tight knit drama full of people in rooms talking to each other, well, Downton Abbey and Bridgerton are over there ->
- Pre-picking seats isn't annoying. You actually get your seats then, and if somebody's sat in them, you have discourse to get them out of them.
  I have a generous sized TV and Atmos at home, but I still find myself going to the cinema at least once a week, someone 3 times a week depending on the release schedule. My cinema is even a shitty one with some screens having a bit shit audio (no longer as bad as it used to be though), but I still find myself going weekly. There's just something about the cinema, along with seeing them during release times that can't be replicated at home.
  Then again, I'm also the kind of person who just doesn't like to binge anymore, it's too much in one go. And with the cinema I have a card that allows me to only part the price of about 2 tickets a month to then see as many films I want in that month that I keep on subscription. It's much better than any streaming service option in my opinion. And occasionally when I'm out of town I can also see a new film or one I've previously seen in a better cinema than my own line in IMAX or something.
  I'd be very sad for cinema to die out, moreso because I don't want to just consume everything on my couch. That feels like a lonely life to me.
- Wow this is the first "pro-marvel" response that actually put some thought into it, and while I don't personally agree you've made the only compelling argument in this entire thread as to why these marvel movies being constantly regurgitated makes any sense.
  
  Now, when it comes to "Marvel regurgitation", yeah, they could, and should, be doing better. They essentially re-use the same basic plot over and over again and will keep doing it until they hit one that doesn't make a billion dollars.
  I'm a lifelong comic book fan and I love that nerd culture is finally taking over, but I swear to god, I don't need another superhero movie where the hero and villain have a joined origin story and the villain is just a bigger, badder version of the hero.
  Seriously.
  Iron Man - Iron Monger
  Incredible Hulk - Abomination
  Iron Man 2 - Whiplash
  Thor - Loki (both sons of Odin)
  Captain America - Red Skull
  Avengers - Loki + Alien Invasion
  Iron Man 3 - Extremis
  Thor: Dark World - Dark Elf invasion
  Captain America: Winter Soldier - Bucky
  Guardians of the Galaxy - Ronan - First one to break formula.
  Avengers: Age of Ultron - Ultron joined origin with Vision.
  Ant-Man - Yellow Jacket
  Captain America: Civil War - Avengers vs. Avengers
  Doctor Strange - Kaecilius
  Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 - Pete's Dad
  Spider-Man: Homecoming - Vulture, Pete's girlfriend's dad.
  Thor: Ragnarok - Hela, evil firstborn sister.
  Black Panther - Killmonger
  Avengers: Infinity War - Tying it all together.
  Ant-Man and the Wasp - Ghost, a victim of Pym tech.
  Captain Marvel - Yon-Rogg
  Avengers: Endgame - Tying it all together.
  Spider-Man: Far From Home - Mysterio (Stark Tech villain vs. Stark Tech hero)

No lies detected.
Honestly tuned out of the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe stuff after the Avengers Age Of Ultron movie. It all felt so manufactured and artificial by then already.

It's weird to me that he's lumping all comic book movies together and acting like they're the problem. We keep having trash movies churned out by studios because they make money. That's been true since at least the nineteen-forties if not earlier. Hell, I'm really just talking about the ones where enough of them still survive that you can go find them. Earlier, in the silent era, yeah, you had trash get made quickly and churned out so that people would pay a dime to watch it. I don't get how a single genre is supposed to be the culmination that's ruining cinema.
But, here's the thing. Have movies changed over the years? Absolutely. Scorcesie's movies have changed over the years! His style has changed, his vision has changed. What sells tickets has changed. How studios are producing films based on what they think will make them money has changed. It's been discussed before that the fall of video rentals and the rise of streaming has changed what kinds of movies studios are willing to put their money behind and how they're less likely to take a risk on something than they used to be. That's a problem. That's a big problem because it's reduced the number of small-budget and medium-budget studio films. None of that can be blamed on comic book adaptations.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with a comic book adaptation. Marvel movies are overly formulaic and especially since Disney bought them overly safe. Even in the ones I like, I can just feel that Disney touch that makes me go, "Ew," sometimes. DC's movies have been mismanaged with an unfit vision helming its original run from the start. So the big series, yes, I'll admit, they're kind of shit cinema. I still enjoy some of them, but they're kind of shit cinema. There are plenty of shit crime movies and thrillers and other things like that, but I'm not going to start yelling about how they're killing cinema and we have to fight against them. Why do comic book adaptations get singled out as artless trash when there's a constant stream of hollow feel-good romance films that get churned out every year? Do those formulaic vacuous sap-fests (some of which I love and will watch whenever I need a good cry, I'm really not knocking them) really merit a pass yet for some reason comic books require this war be waged by filmmakers against them? I really don't see how they're the problem.
And you can come in and say things like, "He's just stirring the pot to promote his film," but I don't think so. Scorsese has had a lot to say about modern filmmaking even when he doesn't have a project on the table. He's talked about his feelings on modern film culture, comic book adaptations, using the word content to describe any form of media, and more. I really don't think he's doing it to bring attention to any project so much as he just really feels very strongly that movies have changed and change is bad? Is that really what it is? Because some of the stuff he sees as a problem, yeah, I agree, it's an issue. But other stuff like this, even if there is a problem, your aim at what the problem really is is just completely off.

well, THAT just happened
- Awkward
  
  .....he's right behind me, isn't he?

I agree. pass the popcorn the comments already begun

About a decade too late there bub

Poor old man, he doesn't know what is coming. Movies with Ai generated scenarios and actors. Actors that you can change if you pay some micro transactions, and their outfits too. Half assed on release, pay some more for dlc's to have the full story, etc...
- It sounds batshit insane but I genuinely wouldn't put it past any company to do this if they could
  
  "If they could"
  That's basically just video games you don't control, its well within reach.

“Culture” , at this point and a long time ago is not about a culture, it’s just what it makes money … ironically is ruining the industry and less people want to watch Hollywood
- Then it seems like a self-correcting problem then.
  If fewer people are interested in that kind of content then the studios won't make it. Problem (assuming they're even is one) solved.
  
  This is mostly what we tend to think, but even if it sounds strange, consumption is not always driven by the people, the companies force the people to consume and population adopts it. It happened with several cases for example in food industry. The current producers, the people who have the money, investors, don’t give a single f of what cinema represents. And also lobbism . The history behind it, the powerful values of it, how strong it communicates culture… and all the brilliant stories that came from it.

Popular cinema has been a smear on the pavement for years. Indie cinema has been going just as it's ever been.

That movie sounds dope.
As for the other part, I love comic book movies, but still agree. I think he might get more agreement if he reframed it as a complaint about homginization. For instance, I think The Batman was surprisingly fresh. Whereas the Flash was like... high end tv, maybe? Like, not BAD, but you've gotta ask: how many people will watch it five years from now? What ideas or artistic images is it introducing?
I think some comic movies --Black Panther, for instance -- move culture and inspire new stories. But a lot don't. I've heard it said that the modern studio system could never make Back to the Future or Ghostbusters, and I think that's true. A lot needs to change about how these are financed and distributed to make that not the case.
- I’ve heard it said that the modern studio system could never make Back to the Future or Ghostbusters, and I think that’s true.
  What does this even mean?
  
  Probably talking about new IPs? Studios are pretty risk averse nowadays.
  
  I apologize, but the case was made to be in a long and very compelling article that I don't have a link for.
  I think it was about consolidation, and how the lack of diversity in small independent theaters and small independent distributors robbed movies that weren't copies of successful films the chance to become surprise hits.
  Now, most theaters are chains, and they're largely owned by the same entities that own distributors. So everywhere shows the same films, and there's no one to take a chance on something different or risky.
  
  It obviously means studios wouldn't take a chance on something "wacky" which is a change that prevents as much actual creativity from getting to audiences

ITT: people are mad because someone doesn't like their mahvie movies

yeah I could really go without another 20 years of kind of movies

“The danger there is what it’s doing to our culture,” he told GQ. “Because there are going to be generations now that think ... that’s what movies are.”
and you’ll have Chris Nolan, you know what I mean?

"Stop making things I personally don't like! It's destroying the culture of America!"
The future is comic book movies, old man. Deal with it.

Oh yes Martin. Please save the cinema by yawns making the 100th Mafia movie.
- You say that superhero movies vary to a degree that I would even notice if you switched movies halfway through when I went for a piss break.
  Absolutely zero interesting qualities in any of the last 10 super hero movies that I've seen.

I believe Disney is doing it on their own by now. Look at what is happening to Marcel and the DCU, I see only big failures recently and viewers are exhausted by it too.
- What? The last Marvel Movie Gaurdians of the Galaxy 3, was released 5/5/23, had a budget of 250M and has earned 850M. That's far from a big failure. You might not like them, but they are far from "failures".

This comes off as very "Old man yells at clouds".
People will watch what they want to watch. It doesn't matter if you want them to watch something else. He's free to make non-superhero movies, and people will watch it if they prefer it. You can't dictate "taste" to people.
- You can, it's called education.

save Big Band dance hall culture while you're at it, too Marty.. that shit was fly, and there was more dames than there are at one of your little picture shows, you know what i mean, pal.. great for cardiac health too.. i mean don't get me wrong.. i like watching Joe stab an asshole in the throat with a pen just as much as the next asshole.. especially if you hit him over the head with a bat later, man that was a fucking twist outta nowhere.. fucking cinema, wow..
okay Marty good luck with everything.. seriously though, Big Band too as long as you're saving important cultural you know, institutions..

Only uncultured peasants watch movies. 😜

I was admittedly on the train with Marvel until End Game and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've since fallen off the MCU. I'll still catch Batman, but otherwise I'm on board with moving on.

Based

With covid around you shuldnt go to a movie teather.
Disney cape shit sucks i agree. But be responsible and dont go to enclosed crowded places when there is an airborn plague.
- Get over it, most people are vaxxed now and don't see it as a particular risk. I sat in a full showing of Oppenheimer the other month and came out fine and healthy.
- Did you time warp from August 2021 or what?

I respect him a lot but I don't think people will consider comic book adaptations as the real cinema. Movies like Spiderman into the Spiderverse and Across the Spiderverse were good, even a good example for good animation. But will we call it real cinema? If we do, does it matter?
- You got a weird definition of cinema yo. Cinema isn't some high falutin, transcendental experience. I don't care if it's Good Fellas or Beavis and Butthead. They're all just movies.
  
  Yeah, the main point of mine was that different people have different views on cinema. For some, it's art. For some, it's an entertainment, a past time. For some, it's business. Having a proper composition of all of these is important.
  Mari Selvaraj's Pariyerum Perumal and Vetrimaaran's Visaranai are cinema to me, but will I suggest everyone the same movie? not.

Old man doing old man things moving on 🙄

260 comments