Martin Scorsese: Marvel films are cinema. They're theme parks.

Of course he's right, but so many fans and directors are offended. Truth hurts sometimes. Glad Coppola backed him.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/francis-ford-coppola-marvel-martin-scorsese-superhero-movies-despicable

Alejandro G. Iñárritu [on superhero movies] For me superheroes represent that vision of humans as flawless and certain, and all those things that are a delusional projection of how human beings should be. It's almost fascist-there's something very scary about that, the vanity. And for me, humans are exactly contrary to all that. I've never met a human like that. And I'm much more interested in humans, which I find much more dimensional and contradictory and flawed and driven by fears and anxiety, but at the same time, beautiful, pathetic, lovable creatures that I find fascinating. I think the values of the superheroes are in a way affecting the way the military mind works. So I have a conflict, philosophically, with the generations today not being fascinated by our human flaws and possibilities, and everything that's human seems to be boring now. It's scary for me. That's my conflict-that humans seem to be now no longer subject to analysis and observation, and we cannot see ourselves in films because we feel so bad about ourselves. We have been acting so bad in the last years, the world is in such bad shape, that probably the reason (for the superhero craze)-I'm being outspoken here-is there's a shame about seeing humans on the screen. And that's sad.

Sarai wrote:

Alejandro G. Iñárritu  [on superhero movies] For me superheroes represent that vision of humans as flawless and certain, and all those things that are a delusional projection of how human beings should be. It's almost fascist-there's something very scary about that, the vanity. And for me, humans are exactly contrary to all that. I've never met a human like that. And I'm much more interested in humans, which I find much more dimensional and contradictory and flawed and driven by fears and anxiety, but at the same time, beautiful, pathetic, lovable creatures that I find fascinating. I think the values of the superheroes are in a way affecting the way the military mind works. So I have a conflict, philosophically, with the generations today not being fascinated by our human flaws and possibilities, and everything that's human seems to be boring now. It's scary for me. That's my conflict-that humans seem to be now no longer subject to analysis and observation, and we cannot see ourselves in films because we feel so bad about ourselves. We have been acting so bad in the last years, the world is in such bad shape, that probably the reason (for the superhero craze)-I'm being outspoken here-is there's a shame about seeing humans on the screen. And that's sad.

Beautifully put. I agree. I've always maintained that there's never a sense of danger in superhero movies because of these superhuman powers. How can you relate to that?

I don't think they care to relate to anything. If Scorsese and Coppola have proven anything it's that the comic book/Marvel/CGI spandex movie crowd is probably the most whiny, overly-sensitive, narcissistic fan base in recent memory. The idea two legendary filmmakers have to hold their tongues instead of using them to boot lick corporate drivel like these deranged man babies are doing is pathetic and laughable. Next they'll be expecting statues of their favorite heroes to be erected in town squares as a monument to their narcissism.

Funnily enough I don't think many of this crowd for would know who Scorsese or Coppola are. I'm waiting for an indiewire article headlined: "Martin who? The man behind the Marvel attacks."

Natalie Portman has supposedly weighed in by saying there's room for all types of cinema. Nah, not really - that's the point behind Scorsese's sentiments.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Sarai wrote:

Alejandro G. Iñárritu  [on superhero movies] For me superheroes represent that vision of humans as flawless and certain, and all those things that are a delusional projection of how human beings should be. It's almost fascist-there's something very scary about that, the vanity. And for me, humans are exactly contrary to all that. I've never met a human like that. And I'm much more interested in humans, which I find much more dimensional and contradictory and flawed and driven by fears and anxiety, but at the same time, beautiful, pathetic, lovable creatures that I find fascinating. I think the values of the superheroes are in a way affecting the way the military mind works. So I have a conflict, philosophically, with the generations today not being fascinated by our human flaws and possibilities, and everything that's human seems to be boring now. It's scary for me. That's my conflict-that humans seem to be now no longer subject to analysis and observation, and we cannot see ourselves in films because we feel so bad about ourselves. We have been acting so bad in the last years, the world is in such bad shape, that probably the reason (for the superhero craze)-I'm being outspoken here-is there's a shame about seeing humans on the screen. And that's sad.

Beautifully put. I agree. I've always maintained that there's never a sense of danger in superhero movies because of these superhuman powers.  How can you relate to that?

I really can't and I think it's just about the thrill of seeing these characters brought to life on the big screen. The only one I watched was the first Avengers movie and I didn't share in that thrill. I can handle it in a 20 minute animated show but 2.5 hours of that, no thanks.

There is a ceiling to how good any superhero movie can be.

Part of that is a devotion to the totems of the genre, one which can be subverted but never entirely discarded.

The main reason is that these are products from a behemoth media company, one which is not interested in true originality but which prefers a formula that has proven lucrative in the past.

Even the so-called more "out there" superhero movies, like Joker, are just inferior versions of proper dramas (in the case of the clown movie primarily Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy).

Sarai wrote:

Alejandro G. Iñárritu  [on superhero movies] For me superheroes represent that vision of humans as flawless and certain, and all those things that are a delusional projection of how human beings should be. It's almost fascist-there's something very scary about that, the vanity. And for me, humans are exactly contrary to all that. I've never met a human like that. And I'm much more interested in humans, which I find much more dimensional and contradictory and flawed and driven by fears and anxiety, but at the same time, beautiful, pathetic, lovable creatures that I find fascinating. I think the values of the superheroes are in a way affecting the way the military mind works. So I have a conflict, philosophically, with the generations today not being fascinated by our human flaws and possibilities, and everything that's human seems to be boring now. It's scary for me. That's my conflict-that humans seem to be now no longer subject to analysis and observation, and we cannot see ourselves in films because we feel so bad about ourselves. We have been acting so bad in the last years, the world is in such bad shape, that probably the reason (for the superhero craze)-I'm being outspoken here-is there's a shame about seeing humans on the screen. And that's sad.

Well said. Is it any wonder that the generation which grew up and came of age watching these horrendous cartoons lacks resilience, is prone to hysteria, and rages at any perceived offence with puritanical zeal?

Marvel flicks are fun escapist entertainment. God forbid that the masses might just prefer them to the likes of Scorsese's Silence, which sounded dreary as fuck to be perfectly honest.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Marvel flicks are fun escapist entertainment. God forbid that the masses might just prefer them to the likes of Scorsese's Silence, which sounded dreary as fuck to be perfectly honest.  

I feel that way about the few Scorsese films that I have seen and admit to finding them overall an unpleasant experience. I think it was Goodfellas where they shoot the young kid and there is that other gangster film where they beat the guy to death with a baseball bat in a field. I found it a bit too much which is odd as I have watched a ton of very demented sick movies over the years ...a lot of B underground horror films and they never left me with that sort of nauseated feeling.
I just looked up Silence and it really sounds like a movie I would like and the subject matter I find quite interesting but I don't know if I will watch it with him being the director. He's quite talented, no doubt about that but really not my cup of tea so I see where you are coming from here.

I'm the opposite ... the subject matter doesn't interest me at all, to be honest. The closest I'll ever get to watching that sort of thing is Life Of Brian .

Yet another reason to admire Eastwood is that he's also a veteran director/star, but he doesn't waste time pissing and moaning about 'the competition'. He just gets the hell on with it.

Salomé wrote:

There is a ceiling to how good any superhero movie can be.

...

Even the so-called more "out there" superhero movies, like Joker, are just inferior versions of proper dramas (in the case of the clown movie primarily Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy).

Boom. The critical appraisal of Joker is hilariously warped. It's a solid film but still restrained within the tropes that define (current) superhero films. And as you say, Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, both which I also feel Joker alluded to, are superior films.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I'm the opposite ... the subject matter doesn't interest me at all, to be honest. The closest I'll ever get to watching that sort of thing is Life Of Brian .  

Yet another reason to admire Eastwood is that he's also a veteran director/star, but he doesn't waste time pissing and moaning about 'the competition'. He just gets the hell on with it.

Never heard of Life of Brian but just looking up the plot has me laughing already. OK, that I might check out.

I forgot he directed Kundun and that is one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen.

Fa-yen asked the monk Hsüan-tzu why he had never asked him any questions about Zen. The monk explained that he had already attained his understanding from another master. Pressed by Fa-yen for an explanation, the monk said that when he had asked his teacher, “What is the meaning of Buddhism?” he had received the answer, “Ping-ting comes for fire!”

"A good answer!" said Fa-yen. "But I’m sure you don’t understand it."

"Ping-ting," explained the monk, "is the god of fire. For him to be seeking for fire is like myself, seeking the Buddha. I’m the Buddha already, and no asking is needed."

"Just as I thought!" laughed Fa-yen. "You didn’t get it."

The monk said, “Well, how would you answer?”

"Go ahead, ask me." said Fa-yen.

"What is the meaning of Buddhism?" inquired the monk.

"Ping-ting comes for fire!"

Early Marty titles are essential, vital, raw, blistering and purely personal. Pictures like Mean Streets and Taxi Driver are so vital everyone should know them. I think many of his best works are sadly lesser known and he can do an incredible about face from the more obvious and make beautiful aching works like AGE OF INNOCENCE for example. I think LAST TEMPTATION is a stunning achievement and I adore that he had to try to make it for almost a decade and do a wonderful weird movie and a commercial hit in between attempts to get it made. And I really like both of the in between films (After Hours and Color of Money). I'm also one of the few weird ones that thinks Casino is better than Goodfellas.

For me personally I check out with BRINGING OUT THE DEAD as I think that's the last good film he's gotten to make though I try to find things to like in the modern ones. Out of all the generation of New Hollywood people and out of the even fewer still working I think he's the one that still cares the most about the job but finds it increasingly hard to get something to the screen without it being horribly diluted and changed beyond recognition.
I still adore to hear him talk and follow all Film Foundation restoration news like crazy.

He also has the deepest knowledge of the history of the medium-and actually cares about it vividly that surpasses even his surviving chums-so much so that it kills me when he makes stuff that isn't up to his standards.

Gangs of NY-Aviator-Departed were so bad it really depressed me.

I still need to see all of Silence. However I couldn't really buy the leads or shake the feeling that it was too much like THE MISSION which was a very similar film that didn't quite work but one I still really enjoy.

It's just Marty's opinion. You can agree or disagree with it. Like Bond films, I find Marvel to be entertaining escapism when done right.

Sarai wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I'm the opposite ... the subject matter doesn't interest me at all, to be honest. The closest I'll ever get to watching that sort of thing is Life Of Brian .  

Yet another reason to admire Eastwood is that he's also a veteran director/star, but he doesn't waste time pissing and moaning about 'the competition'. He just gets the hell on with it.

Never heard of Life of Brian but just looking up the plot has me laughing already.  OK, that I might check out.

Probably the best religious satire there is or ever will be. The Python team's finest hour.

thanks again for the recommendation...I've got it downloaded and will watch soon

hegottheboot wrote:

Early Marty titles are essential, vital, raw, blistering and purely personal. Pictures like Mean Streets and Taxi Driver are so vital everyone should know them. I think many of his best works are sadly lesser known and he can do an incredible about face from the more obvious and make beautiful aching works like AGE OF INNOCENCE for example. I think LAST TEMPTATION is a stunning achievement and I adore that he had to try to make it for almost a decade and do a wonderful weird movie and a commercial hit in between attempts to get it made. And I really like both of the in between films (After Hours and Color of Money). I'm also one of the few weird ones that thinks Casino is better than Goodfellas.

For me personally I check out with BRINGING OUT THE DEAD as I think that's the last good film he's gotten to make though I try to find things to like in the modern ones. Out of all the generation of New Hollywood people and out of the even fewer still working I think he's the one that still cares the most about the job but finds it increasingly hard to get something to the screen without it being horribly diluted and changed beyond recognition.
I still adore to hear him talk and follow all Film Foundation restoration news like crazy.

He also has the deepest knowledge of the history of the medium-and actually cares about it vividly that surpasses even his surviving chums-so much so that it kills me when he makes stuff that isn't up to his standards.

Gangs of NY-Aviator-Departed were so bad it really depressed me.

I still need to see all of Silence. However I couldn't really buy the leads or shake the feeling that it was too much like THE MISSION which was a very similar film that didn't quite work but one I still really enjoy.

I want to see Last Temptation as it is one of the best books I have ever read in my life. If one is tuned into that type of thing it's quite humorous too in how it deals with the ego.

hegottheboot wrote:

Gangs of NY-Aviator-Departed were so bad it really depressed me.

I like all three of them. What don't you like about them?

Gangs is too long and suffered mightily because of the Weinsteins wanting to control it. The production design and DDL are great though. The original concept was to have been made years before as a gritty 70's film made on a low budget and scored by The Clash. What a what if!
Aviator is a mess and more like a fan book of classical Hollywood versus the real life actuality. All of the real life people come across as caricatures and I thought the attempt to look like three strip technicolor didn't work and that the film was a mess. I saw it in the theater and couldn't believe how bad it was. However I'm a giant classic Hollywood geek and usually don't like it when things set themselves in the era when they don't try and get things right.
Departed just felt average to me and like anyone could have made it. It certainly didn't hold up to either the pedigree of cast and crew and was nowhere as good as Infernal Affairs. I suppose I resented all the admiration it seemed the public heaped on it and that it was the film Marty finally won the Oscar for.

I've been meaning to do a Scorsese career rewatch for some time and will give these another shot but they just never worked for me-nor am I a fan of DiCaprio's style at all.

It's interesting that Martin Scorsese also filleted "Joker" in a single quote.

He was supposedly offered the project but rejected because he didn't want to spend several years of his life working on a story in which a "real-life character slowly turns into a comic book character".

Safe to assume he wasn't flattered by Joker drawing on Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy for inspiration, then.

Funnily he was originally attached as a producer for JOKER before dropping out of it so to focus on THE IRISHMAN.