Martin Scorsese - Marvel movies are 'not cinema'

[AnonymityX1000]

:gucci"

THIS is how we're addressing GOAT'Sese these days?

Disrespect usually begets more disrespect.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Scorsese is making folks mad again. He wrote an essay about Federico Fellini for Harper's and some of what he wrote has ticked off people who were bothered by what he said about comic book movies.

This is the part of the essay that is making 'em mad out there in them Internet streets:

The art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator by conceptualization of films as content.

As recently as 15 years ago, the term ‘content’ was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against ‘form'. Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. ‘Content’ became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores.

On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?

Curating isn’t undemocratic or “elitist,” a term that is now used so often that it’s become meaningless. It’s an act of generosity—you’re sharing what you love and what has inspired you. (The best streaming platforms, such as the Criterion Channel and MUBI and traditional outlets such as TCM, are based on curating—they’re actually curated.) Algorithms, by definition, are based on calculations that treat the viewer as a consumer and nothing else.

​

And here is an example of the types of push back that his opinion is getting:

 

[Bryan Danielson]

Mob flick

 

[Jello Biafra]

Mob flick

That made me laugh too.

 

[HipHopStan]

Scorsese is making folks mad again. He wrote an essay about Federico Fellini for Harper's and some of what he wrote has ticked off people who were bothered by what he said about comic book movies.

This is the part of the essay that is making 'em mad out there in them Internet streets:

The art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator by conceptualization of films as content.

As recently as 15 years ago, the term ‘content’ was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against ‘form'. Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. ‘Content’ became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores.

On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?

Curating isn’t undemocratic or “elitist,” a term that is now used so often that it’s become meaningless. It’s an act of generosity—you’re sharing what you love and what has inspired you. (The best streaming platforms, such as the Criterion Channel and MUBI and traditional outlets such as TCM, are based on curating—they’re actually curated.) Algorithms, by definition, are based on calculations that treat the viewer as a consumer and nothing else.

​

And here is an example of the types of push back that his opinion is getting:

Avengers Endgame is a "post apocalyptic psychological mystery?"





































































Am I getting r/woooosh'd here?

 

[seabreeze80]

Scorsese should direct a comic book movie and show them how it should be done. I guarantee it would be the greatest comic movie ever made.

 

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

Breh

Scorsese directing the Punisher? Daredevil?

Day one.

also

Scorsese should direct a comic book movie and show them how it should be done. I guarantee it would be the greatest comic movie ever made.

 

[Lootpack]

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

 

[parallax]

theres a lot of random buzzwords to describe those marvel movies.

but at the same time, scorceses gatekeeping would get him shyt on in any other medium

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Scorsese is making folks mad again. He wrote an essay about Federico Fellini for Harper's and some of what he wrote has ticked off people who were bothered by what he said about comic book movies.

This is the part of the essay that is making 'em mad out there in them Internet streets:

The art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator by conceptualization of films as content.

As recently as 15 years ago, the term ‘content’ was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against ‘form'. Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. ‘Content’ became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores.

On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?

Curating isn’t undemocratic or “elitist,” a term that is now used so often that it’s become meaningless. It’s an act of generosity—you’re sharing what you love and what has inspired you. (The best streaming platforms, such as the Criterion Channel and MUBI and traditional outlets such as TCM, are based on curating—they’re actually curated.) Algorithms, by definition, are based on calculations that treat the viewer as a consumer and nothing else.

​

And here is an example of the types of push back that his opinion is getting:

Interesting topic he brought up is if curating is worthwhile or not. I'm on his side of the argument but not a zealot about it like he comes across.

 

[Drew Wonder]

​

And here is an example of the types of push back that his opinion is getting:

I know it's just twitter but that's a dumb tweet. Of the 27 films Scorcese has made, 5 of them are mob flicks. If they wanted to get at him for being repetitive, they could've said most of his films are about Catholic guilt. But that would require actually being familiar with Scorcese's work

 

[AnonymityX1000]

Netflix is unabashedly a platform trying to create content for every demo while Disney + and HBOMAX are aiming at only certain demos. Is one approach more admirable than the other? I would say having a standard is better but not by a lot especially when intent is made clear.

 

[hex]

First off whoever came up with those weird ass buzz word descriptions of Marvel movies gotta be smoking crack. I like the MCU just fine but....they're pop corn flicks.

The sole deviation from that is "Wandavision", which isn't even a movie.

Having said that, while I agree with his over all sentiment....he's the wrong guy to be taking a stand against streaming services when he no longer knows how to budget a movie. Which led to "The Irishman" losing it's distribution in theaters and Netflix scooping it up.

And now, again, Paramount pumped the breaks on his latest movie because it was over budget. And now, again, Apple (a streaming service) had to save it.

So....yeah. If you don't want streaming algorithms to dictate the fate of your movies....maybe stop relying on them to finance your films.

Fred.

 

[Edub]

Scorsese is making folks mad again. He wrote an essay about Federico Fellini for Harper's and some of what he wrote has ticked off people who were bothered by what he said about comic book movies.

This is the part of the essay that is making 'em mad out there in them Internet streets:

The art of cinema is being systematically devalued, sidelined, demeaned, and reduced to its lowest common denominator by conceptualization of films as content.

As recently as 15 years ago, the term ‘content’ was heard only when people were discussing the cinema on a serious level, and it was contrasted with and measured against ‘form'. Then, gradually, it was used more and more by the people who took over media companies, most of whom knew nothing about the history of the art form, or even cared enough to think that they should. ‘Content’ became a business term for all moving images: a David Lean movie, a cat video, a Super Bowl commercial, a superhero sequel, a series episode. It was linked, of course, not to the theatrical experience but to home viewing, on the streaming platforms that have come to overtake the moviegoing experience, just as Amazon overtook physical stores.

On the one hand, this has been good for filmmakers, myself included. On the other hand, it has created a situation in which everything is presented to the viewer on a level playing field, which sounds democratic but isn’t. If further viewing is “suggested” by algorithms based on what you’ve already seen, and the suggestions are based only on subject matter or genre, then what does that do to the art of cinema?

Curating isn’t undemocratic or “elitist,” a term that is now used so often that it’s become meaningless. It’s an act of generosity—you’re sharing what you love and what has inspired you. (The best streaming platforms, such as the Criterion Channel and MUBI and traditional outlets such as TCM, are based on curating—they’re actually curated.) Algorithms, by definition, are based on calculations that treat the viewer as a consumer and nothing else.

​

And here is an example of the types of push back that his opinion is getting:

Martin has waaaay more movies than that tho....