Marvel Comics on Film
- Big Ben
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
- Location: Great Falls, Montana
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
The response to his statement online has been about as cordial as you can expect.
- TwoTecs
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:26 pm
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
I think Scorsese is talking more about the director-audience relationship than the relationships of the characters in the movies. Emotions, like humor and action, are just one of the features of any Marvel product. They are there because they help round out the product and make it more appealing.
- movielocke
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
Marvel Comics on Film
It’s just the old pro “literature” anti-sci-fi / anti-fantasy argument applied to film instead of books.
See for example gk Chesterton defending the comic book films of his day:
And his critique is especially off base with the marvel films because the franchise has succeeded and the films make their Billions Because of their emotional content and the connections these films build with their audience and the meanings they take from deeply archetypal stories of struggle and ultimately sacrifice
there’s a fascinating flaw when making these “no value” arguments about speculative fiction, the speculative fiction worlds are inherently meaningful and they are often a conscious rejection of the literary trope of a meaningless world.
In Speculative fiction, meaningful worlds are populated by supernatural beings who bend reality to fit their desires and feature narratives where every event is meaningful and about the supernatural protagonist and their (meaningful) quest.
But the funny thing is that a meaningful world narrative is closer to mythology and religion than it is to the dominant culture of “meaningless world” in literature. That’s why you see such zealotry with fandoms, they’re literally religious adherents to a sacred text and that is because our brains are evolved to process the world in meaningful ways; ascribing intent to any event is hardwired into our brains.
Humans don’t just figure out that lightning is a natural process, for thousands of years we say it is meaningful and there is intent behind it, lightning happened for a meaningful reason and it continues to this day. If Barack Obama were struck by lightning millions would say it’s because god was punishing him for “(insert x)”
Whenever someone tells a grieving parent that “god has a plan” it’s the same thing, our human instinct is not to believe a thing is a random event in a meaningless world, but that the event had meaning and intent. our brains crave to ascribe intent where there is none, to find patterns in noise, to craft narrative out of randomness.
So when we get speculative fiction giving us meaningful worlds, our brains respond to that, because this is a world that makes sense to us on an instinctual level. And just as humans find solace and value in the mythologies of the “meaningful world” explanations of religion, so they are today finding the same in the “meaningful worlds” offered by speculative fiction.
See for example gk Chesterton defending the comic book films of his day:
It’s funny / weird that an artist most famous for making genre pictures (gangster films) is saying “x” genre has no value.In attempting to reach the genuine psychological reason for the popularity of detective stories, it is necessary to rid ourselves of many mere phrases. It is not true, for example, that the populace prefer bad literature to good, and accept detective stories because they are bad literature. The mere absence of artistic subtlety does not make a book popular. Bradshaw’s Railway Guide contains few gleams of psychological comedy, yet it is not read aloud uproariously on winter evenings. If detective stories are read with more exuberance than railway guides, it is certainly because they are more artistic. Many good books have fortunately been popular; many bad books, still more fortunately, have been unpopular. A good detective story would probably be even more popular than a bad one. The trouble in this matter is that many people do not realize that there is such a thing as a good detective story; it is to them like speaking of a good devil. To write a story about a burglary is, in their eyes, a sort of spiritual manner of committing it. To persons of somewhat weak sensibility this is natural enough; it must be confessed that many detective stories are as full of sensational crime as one of Shakespeare’s plays.
And his critique is especially off base with the marvel films because the franchise has succeeded and the films make their Billions Because of their emotional content and the connections these films build with their audience and the meanings they take from deeply archetypal stories of struggle and ultimately sacrifice
there’s a fascinating flaw when making these “no value” arguments about speculative fiction, the speculative fiction worlds are inherently meaningful and they are often a conscious rejection of the literary trope of a meaningless world.
In Speculative fiction, meaningful worlds are populated by supernatural beings who bend reality to fit their desires and feature narratives where every event is meaningful and about the supernatural protagonist and their (meaningful) quest.
But the funny thing is that a meaningful world narrative is closer to mythology and religion than it is to the dominant culture of “meaningless world” in literature. That’s why you see such zealotry with fandoms, they’re literally religious adherents to a sacred text and that is because our brains are evolved to process the world in meaningful ways; ascribing intent to any event is hardwired into our brains.
Humans don’t just figure out that lightning is a natural process, for thousands of years we say it is meaningful and there is intent behind it, lightning happened for a meaningful reason and it continues to this day. If Barack Obama were struck by lightning millions would say it’s because god was punishing him for “(insert x)”
Whenever someone tells a grieving parent that “god has a plan” it’s the same thing, our human instinct is not to believe a thing is a random event in a meaningless world, but that the event had meaning and intent. our brains crave to ascribe intent where there is none, to find patterns in noise, to craft narrative out of randomness.
So when we get speculative fiction giving us meaningful worlds, our brains respond to that, because this is a world that makes sense to us on an instinctual level. And just as humans find solace and value in the mythologies of the “meaningful world” explanations of religion, so they are today finding the same in the “meaningful worlds” offered by speculative fiction.
Last edited by movielocke on Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- hearthesilence
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
- Location: NYC
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
Scorsese isn't making a broad argument against comic book adaptations or comic books themselves, he's referring specifically to Marvel movies. A History of Violence and Ghost World, among others, are comic book or graphic novel adaptations, but there's a big difference between those films and juvenile superhero fantasies that feel like a string of amusement park attractions. (Even outside of the film world, there's an enormous difference between the superhero comics Marvel, DC or - God help us - Image have published compared to the better indie publications out there.) Occasionally you have a Marvel movie that tries to be more, but Scorsese ain't wrong.
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
He's right. It is a TV series shown in film theaters.Foam wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 4:07 pmScorsese says Marvel movies are not cinema“I tried, you know?” the director said when asked if he had seen Marvel’s movies. “But that’s not cinema.”
He continued: “Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.”
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
This is the worst argument to make because if you follow this logic all the way down, you're going to have to praise a lot of garbage that I guarantee you'll hate, no matter how culturally normcore you may try to be. I didn't read the rest of your response, which kind of looked like a Yahoo News comment?movielocke wrote:And his critique is especially off base with the marvel films because the franchise has succeeded and the films make their Billions
- TwoTecs
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:26 pm
- movielocke
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am
Marvel Comics on Film
The continued success of the marvel films is dependent on their ability to emotionally connect to their audience.domino harvey wrote:This is the worst argument to make because if you follow this logic all the way down, you're going to have to praise a lot of garbage that I guarantee you'll hate, no matter how culturally normcore you may try to be. I didn't read the rest of your response, which kind of looked like a Yahoo News comment?movielocke wrote:And his critique is especially off base with the marvel films because the franchise has succeeded and the films make their Billions
The same is true of Hallmark Christmas movies, for example, which as you say is a lot of garbage I don’t particularly care for, but the films and entire sub genre are successful because of the value the audience finds in it, no matter how hard people who don’t find value in it try to scream that they are totally lacking in (my) value.
I watch a ton of arthouse films, my wife finds them to have close to zero value (or less than zero for some), same thing as Hallmark Christmas movies when the show is on the other foot.
- Never Cursed
- Such is life on board the Redoutable
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
Beyond the quality level of the films, though, I sympathize with Scorsese’s comment on a technical/filmmaking level - the production of large chunks of MCU movies are routinely outsourced to stunt and VFX technicians, bypassing the credited director entirely. A bunch of creatives who either worked or almost worked on Marvel movies, like Lucretia Martel, have said as much. The movies may or may not be cinema, but they certainly aren’t made by filmmakers, at least not in the sense that the word is most commonly used.
- Cremildo
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:19 pm
- Location: Brazil
- Contact:
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
Except Scorsese didn't criticize Marvel movies for not connecting emotionally with audiences. He criticized them for failing to convey meaningful human interaction, which is not the same thing.movielocke wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:30 pmAnd his critique is especially off base with the marvel films because the franchise has succeeded and the films make their Billions
-
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
Most people I know (at work) that regularly watch Marvel movies themselves say that they watch them primarily for entertainment and not for emotional connection.
The same would hold true for Transformers and other massive successful blockbusters which are also a more fair comparison to this type of cinema. Bringing lifetime movies into the conversation is being disingenuous IMHO.
The same would hold true for Transformers and other massive successful blockbusters which are also a more fair comparison to this type of cinema. Bringing lifetime movies into the conversation is being disingenuous IMHO.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
But then he's seen very few of them.Cremildo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:42 pmExcept Scorsese didn't criticize Marvel movies for not connecting emotionally with audiences. He criticized them for failing to convey meaningful human interaction, which is not the same thing.movielocke wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:30 pmAnd his critique is especially off base with the marvel films because the franchise has succeeded and the films make their Billions
Like any series, some Marvel films are going to do things better than others. So while most Marvel films are merely adequate in this department, a few--Guardians 2, Thor: Ragnarok, Iron Man, Infinity War, Endgame--do in fact contain moments of genuine and meaningful human interaction. Guardians 2 in particular, tho' a mixed bag overall, explores emotional situations mainstream films rarely tackle, in this case two sisters struggling to recognize each other's humanity after years of being pitted against each other by their abusive father. Actually, Marvel seems much better at doing family than it does, say, romantic or platonic relationships. Can't say there's any reason to care about Tony's on again/off again thing with Pepper Potts, or Vision and Scarlett Witch's ill-defined romance, or Captain America's friendship with Bucky. But stuff like Thor and Loki coming to accept that their natures will always get in the way of their ideals, Gamora and Nebula finding a ground for sistership, or Gamora and Thanos' complicated relationship, is inherently compelling and, yes, human, even tho' technically none of those characters are human.
But Scorsese's comments are in poor faith since they're singling out Marvel for faults in no way specific to it. Modern blockbuster filmmaking does not have a long history of exploring authentic emotions. Even among comic book movies, Marvel has more films with meaningful human interaction than the DC universe has good films, let alone ones with meaningful human interaction (I think the tally for that stands at none).
-
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
He was asked specifically about his thoughts on the Marvel films, not DC films not blockbusters more generally.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
-
- Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
This isn't a dumb post. Even siding with Scorsese, I think there is a whiff of elitism to the discussion. The unwashed masses love the MCU and who are we to say anything. People speak with their wallets. You could argue their is inevitability around the death of theatrical experience and if anything MCU is going to prolong its life. Between the MCU and Marty, Marty went to the small screen first. Is Netflix TV? You bet your ass it is. There can be circular conversations about theatrical windows and what not but the fact remains that a majority of the public will first watch Irishman on their phones or laptops or iPads or TV's. Majority of people first watch MCU movies in the cinema.RIP Film wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 10:34 pmIn this age, why do we even care. Moving images are everywhere, what even is ‘cinema’ anymore? If cinema is a distillation of technique and narrative into a 90-200 minute format, that attempts to create its own language and confer that onto an audience, in hope of imparting a different, new, beautiful, or challenging way of viewing reality... then yes, Marvel movies are a bag of shit on fire. But do we need hold everything in theaters to that standard?
Theaters shouldn’t even be around anymore, you can buy an 86” TV for 2 grand. You can buy a projector. Did marvel/disney kill cinema, or buoy the industry and save it from irrelevance? At least good films can still be made, and be widely available.
Maybe this is a dumb post, but I think there’s enough plurality in what’s available out there that calling something this or that is irrelevant. Though James Gunn comparing his space movie to the boycott of Last Temptation is kinda funny.
This is the reality though of course the discussion about form is another matter. I have an academic interest in cinema more than anything. And the distinction between "cinema" and TV matters to me more than it does to the normal public. For the normal public, everything is "content". Something to fill an evening or the weekend or a train ride etc.
I would think many people here might have an academic interest in cinema. But for the public out there, this discussion is hairsplitting. Should cannes accept streaming titles? I care. But the general public gives zero fucks.
-
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
So how can his comments be in poor faith by “singling out Marvel”?
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
Either he thinks his criticism applies only to Marvel, which is not fair nor reasonable, or he thinks it applies to blockbusters and event films across the board but chose not to say so, leaving Marvel to seem either the only or the most egregious example, which is not fair or reasonable.nitin wrote:So how can his comments be in poor faith by “singling out Marvel”?
Tho’ I think saying it was ‘in bad faith’ was a bit harsh. I’d meant he’d not played fair with Marvel in a way that seemed somewhat disingenuous given his knowledge of film. But ‘in bad faith’ implies a level of duplicitousness his criticisms don’t have.
- mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
I'm not sure that anything where the directors have very little involvement in action sequences and that are scheduled for release before a script is even written can be considered "cinema" in the way that Scorsese is using the term. But this is just not my fight outside of saying that I agree with every word of what he said, and think it applies moreso to Marvel's operation than others.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
So basically the studio system = not cinema.mfunk9786 wrote:I'm not sure that anything where the directors have very little involvement in action sequences and that are scheduled for release before a script is even written can be considered "cinema" in the way that Scorsese is using the term. But this is just not my fight outside of saying that I agree with every word of what he said, and think it applies moreso to Marvel's operation than others.
- Never Cursed
- Such is life on board the Redoutable
- Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
But that isn't the same thing - sure, there was lots of studio-imposed meddling in the crews of Golden Age films, but that was, at least to my understanding, the unplanned result of studio politics and huge concurrent projects (things like The Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind simultaneously hemorrhaging/swapping directors and cinematographers). That's certainly not an ideal system for filmmaking, but those movies were at least being made and overseen at all times by filmmakers. What Martel describes in the above article is not that so much as Kevin Feige et al making the deliberate decision at early planning stages to keep integral parts of a film from being made by the hired and credited filmmaker.
- Mr Sausage
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
Your definition of "filmmaker" is getting rather slippery here.Never Cursed wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 3:40 pmBut that isn't the same thing - sure, there was lots of studio-imposed meddling in the crews of Golden Age films, but that was, at least to my understanding, the unplanned result of studio politics and huge concurrent projects (things like The Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind simultaneously hemorrhaging/swapping directors and cinematographers). That's certainly not an ideal system for filmmaking, but those movies were at least being made and overseen at all times by filmmakers. What Martel describes in the above article is not that so much as Kevin Feige et al making the deliberate decision at early planning stages to keep integral parts of a film from being made by the hired and credited filmmaker.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
Yeah but what difference does it really make? We're used to thinking of the director as the auteur but that doesn't necessarily need to be the case.Never Cursed wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2019 3:40 pmBut that isn't the same thing - sure, there was lots of studio-imposed meddling in the crews of Golden Age films, but that was, at least to my understanding, the unplanned result of studio politics and huge concurrent projects (things like The Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind simultaneously hemorrhaging/swapping directors and cinematographers). That's certainly not an ideal system for filmmaking, but those movies were at least being made and overseen at all times by filmmakers. What Martel describes in the above article is not that so much as Kevin Feige et al making the deliberate decision at early planning stages to keep integral parts of a film from being made by the hired and credited filmmaker.
I don't see a useful distinction between "movies" and "cinema". They're interchangeable terms aside from the latter being frequently used to connote artistic pretensions.
- Foam
- Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:47 am
Re: Marvel Comics on Film
After putting up a resistance for all but the most acclaimed of the Marvel films for the better part of a decade, I recently decided to go through the entire MCU chronologically. I assumed it would be a masochistic exercise but some films seem to have redeeming elements, and I don't always agree with the consensus. (For me, Iron Man 2 is clearly the strongest film from Phase One). Right now I'm up to The Winter Soldier. I have to say, even my favorites so far are mediocre at best, and the worst films are near terrible (Hulk and Thor 2). Although I wouldn't agree with the precise wording of Scorsese's comment, it is true that I haven't felt these films are very communicative of anything, especially of psychological interest. The Iron Man films succeed in performing a kind of light, playful, and detached breeziness (at least until the pretentious "deconstruction" of Iron Man 3) but other than that all of these films seem crushed under the weight of their own maudlin, adolescent self-seriousness. None of them are particularly interesting to look at, although I have heard that this improves with the Guardian films and Ragnarok.
I've also seen Logan and Into the Spiderverse and both of those were far superior to anything in the actual MCU (again, of those that I have already seen). I have to wonder if there's some reason for that? For those like Sausage and movielocke who seem more informed about the series, and willing to defend it, would you say that there is any serious aesthetic charge that can be consistently leveled at the films as a group?
I've also seen Logan and Into the Spiderverse and both of those were far superior to anything in the actual MCU (again, of those that I have already seen). I have to wonder if there's some reason for that? For those like Sausage and movielocke who seem more informed about the series, and willing to defend it, would you say that there is any serious aesthetic charge that can be consistently leveled at the films as a group?