What do you think about Scorsese and Coppola's recent comments about the state of cinema? Are big budget Marvel (and DC) films sucking the life out of big screen entertainment? Are these 'empty calories' diverting attention from other movies in a meaningful way?

https://apnews.com/89758ff1f3794571adfde0c78a18826a



I believe they're right and wrong. At the end of the day, 'entertainment' is subjective and as Spielberg noted, the movie business is cyclical. Also, if a film makes $2 billion at the box-office, that usually means it brought joy to a large number of people. Isn't that what this is all about? Isn't that what the summer boxoffice has been all about? More sophisticated movies are still getting made, you just have to wait until October/November. Right? Well, on the other hand, the success of the MCU cannot be ignored and it's surely having an effect on what projects get greenlit. Surely there are a number of interesting and original pitches being denied by studio execs because they don't hew closely to the MCU model. That's a problem. And one can suppose that if we lived in a less franchis-ey world more good original movies would thrive at the boxoffice because audiences are less desensitized. Ironically, their comments are coming at a time when one of the most profitable films this year is a superhero movie made by creatives who were given wide latitude by the studios. So there's hope.

Have they mentioned DC? Most headlines I see all say Marvel. Which, they have a point about. Marvel is making a giant TV series.

I can understand where they are coming from. I enjoy most of the Marvel and DC films yet ultimately they aren't as satisfying as a great Scorsese/Coppola film or any of the top 10 'quality' films released each year.

That said there is room for both types of films.

It comes off as a bunch of old guys who are upset they can't get any film they want released in theaters anymore. Scorsese is looking at the reviews for Irishman, some of the best in his career, and just cannot fathom why he could not get this released in theaters. Why Netflix was the only one willing to give him the money for it. And he's not going to bite the hand that feeds and point out that the convenience of Netflix is really what killed mid-sized movies at the box office, so why not take a shot at the Kings?

I obviously have a high opinion of the MCU and think that those movies are keeping cinemas alive rather than the other way around. Does Marty think Silence would have been a huge hit if not Captain America ruining everything?

What can you expect when you're on top? It's like Napoleon, when he was king people were just constantly trying to conquer him in the Roman Empire. So it's history repeating itself all over again.

They are just old.

Scorcese's retraction was terrible. Then the next article on why he didn't direct Joker was even worse. I find it funny that the majority of his major successes are adaptations of books. He's a great director, has had so much help along the way. I always found him the weakest of the 70's 6. I might even put him under Altman and Allen and Fridekin, at #9.

People have been complaining about blockbusters taking over since the 70's. For a while were actually doing alright in terms of adult movies even as the MCU was coming up, even better than ten years before but I think Trump's election ruined that. Middle Americans are now fully entrenched in their hatred of Hollywood, people on the other side of the aisle are fretting over movies being politically correct, and Marvel, with its canny impartiality and its almost narcotically devoted fanbase is able to survive.

Really, Scorsese saw his biggest streak of success in the the 06-13 period, so it's hard to see Marvel as the one that ruined everything. Silence broke that streak, and I would say a big reason is that Hacksaw Ridge (undeservedly IMO) stole its thunder. Really, everything bad that's happened to cinema is Gibson's fault. The Passion of the Christ galvanized red state America, and his bringing back the historical epic created an arms race that sucked up money eventually turned prestige movies into a botique outfit. Marty should blame Mel most of all.

Please Coppola was replaced with a pod person after 1979. His opinion is even less important.

I agree and disagree. To me, there are too many superhero movies. It's less a special event and more "Oh, which one is coming out this week?" now. But, when I see older directors against them, all I see is "I can't make the same movie I wanted to make because it's not a comic book movie". And there are still great non-comic book movies getting made and winning awards every year. Coppola hasn't made a well-respected film since the 90s. Don't blame comic book movies for that, the argument doesn't fly.

I just don't get this nostalgic feeling they have over cinema of old. There are a ton of classic films from the 20th century, and there are a ton of shit films from the 20th century. I can turn on TCM and see classic cinema and I can turn on TCM and see the most boring drivel. And there were big budget flicks made for decades. But budget could only take you so far in the 40s and 50s. If they had the ways and means to make them as big back then, don't pretend movie studios would have turned up their nose back then at making billions of dollars, just to make more "quality" movies.

But this idea that films should only ever be one thing and should only make you think or feel a certain way is absurd. Scorsese is about to release one of his most ambitious films, if not THE MOST ambitious film of his career. Don't sit there and tell me that comic book movies are killing cinema.