Movies: Marvel Cinematic Universe Discussion - Part 4

[Do Make Say Think]

Yeah, he's not wrong, but I wouldn't say he's right either.

What is important is the message rather than the conclusion, we all come to our own conclusions based on a myriad of factors.

In today's era of "only the best of the best of the finest will do" everybody simply copies the top dog. The MCU is a formula and one that has proven to be extremely influential. Part of the reason is due to how simple it is: making everything tie together into a cohesive whole isn't that hard on paper, it just takes the forethought and the financial fortitude to resist the urge to have a knee-jerk reaction and course correct at the first sign of trouble.

It isn't unlike how most TV shows now are all so damn similar. The problem isn't the formula, it is that the influx of money and studio's desires end up here, on the path of least resistance.

For people like Scorcese, cinema is meant to challenge the viewer. The MCU does nothing of the sort, it just gives you what you want.

 

[Jussi]

John Campea ranting on Coppola a moment ago...

George Lucas will likely have some words with Coppola.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Scorsese, Coppola, DePalma, Milius ... that whole 70s cohort of filmmakers/friends didn't back Lucas and Star Wars at the time. Only Spielberg did. So I guess I can't say I'm stunned. Certainly not offended in the least. To each their own.

The MCU does more than fine both money wise and critically. Why fans feel they ALSO need blessings from the likes of Scorsese and Coppola (not to mention Oscar recognition) is really beyond me. So what if a few old lions don't dig your movies?

 

[Jussi]

Scorsese, Coppola, DePalma, Milius ... that whole 70s cohort of filmmakers/friends didn't back Lucas and Star Wars at the time. Only Spielberg did. So I guess I can't say I'm stunned. Certainly not offended in the least. To each their own.

The MCU does more than fine both money wise and critically. Why fans feel they ALSO need blessings from the likes of Scorsese and Coppola (not to mention Oscar recognition) is really beyond me. So what if a few old lions don't dig your movies?

That's not an issue here. It's just both are coming off as old men yelling at clouds. Especially Scorsese's thinking of how people would suddenly flock to theaters to watch High art" if not for comic book movies. It's also other directors who idolize these directors, writer and other movie folk who have been very vocally offended by their comments. If you want go with the "looking for blessing" the fact that Robert Redford has appeared in two MCU films along with other Oscar winners, would be enough blessing already. Like I said, I really want to hear George Lucas comment on Scorsese's and Coppola's views. I recall a documentary series by Scorsese on the history of cinema/movies and when it came to modern movies, he left for example Star Wars out.

Coppola's last film was a re-release of a film he put out 40 years and he says no one wants to see the same film over and over again.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

That's not an issue here. It's just both are coming off as old men yelling at clouds. Especially Scorsese's thinking of how people would suddenly flock to theaters to watch High art" if not for comic book movies. It's also other directors who idolize these directors, writer and other movie folk who have been very vocally offended by their comments. If you want go with the "looking for blessing" the fact that Robert Redford has appeared in two MCU films along with other Oscar winners, would be enough blessing already. Like I said, I really want to hear George Lucas comment on Scorsese's and Coppola's views. I recall a documentary series by Scorsese on the history of cinema/movies and when it came to modern movies, he left for example Star Wars out.

Coppola's last film was a re-release of a film he put out 40 years and he says no one wants to see the same film over and over again.

James Gunn seemed pretty peeved Scorsese doesn't like his movies, for one. You just cited John Campea. That's two easy examples. There's grousing here about it too ... maybe I should rephrase. Maybe it isn't seeking blessing (though Gunn certainly seemed to be), maybe it's more an attitude that you can't criticize Marvel. It's a different issue, but I felt this way during the brief Spider-Man kerfuffle where there was a bit of an attitude about "Hey Sony, roll over and let the MCU do what it wants!!!!" I suppose that's what I'm reacting to here as well.

I'm not anti-MCU at all. I legit love a couple of the movies and like a good amount of the others.

But god forbid someone somewhere doesn't kiss the MCU ring and a certain segment of the population collapses on their fainting couches.

Your Coppola dig is spot on though.

 

[Pilky01]

Starting to seem like Gunn just doesn’t handle criticism very well.

 

[Jussi]

Starting to seem like Gunn just doesn’t handle criticism very well.

Do note that this is a phrase no HFBoards poster should use.

 

[RandV]

That's not an issue here. It's just both are coming off as old men yelling at clouds. Especially Scorsese's thinking of how people would suddenly flock to theaters to watch High art" if not for comic book movies. It's also other directors who idolize these directors, writer and other movie folk who have been very vocally offended by their comments. If you want go with the "looking for blessing" the fact that Robert Redford has appeared in two MCU films along with other Oscar winners, would be enough blessing already. Like I said, I really want to hear George Lucas comment on Scorsese's and Coppola's views. I recall a documentary series by Scorsese on the history of cinema/movies and when it came to modern movies, he left for example Star Wars out.

Coppola's last film was a re-release of a film he put out 40 years and he says no one wants to see the same film over and over again.

The "high art" thing has always been a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Just seems like something that is for or liked by a specific group of people, and the concept of what it is and why it's important is also decided on by these same people. The Academy Awards make a good example of this.

What I think the real take away that hasn't been mentioned here is not so much that these movies are taking over the theatres but rather that 'Hollywood' has to take these outside creative properties that people actually enjoy and take them seriously. They can no longer just write off what the properties fanbase may want, hand things off to 3rd rate productions, and/or put their own creative spin on it however they please. A good example of the changing landscape here would be 1993's Super Mario Bros vs 2019's Pokemon Detective Pikachu.

Some like Robert Redford are embracing it while other's like Scorsese are getting left behind. Probably the only reason he's really speaking out is that he had to go to Netflix to get his mob movie made.

 

[Jussi]

The "high art" thing has always been a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Just seems like something that is for or liked by a specific group of people, and the concept of what it is and why it's important is also decided on by these same people. The Academy Awards make a good example of this.

What I think the real take away that hasn't been mentioned here is not so much that these movies are taking over the theatres but rather that 'Hollywood' has to take these outside creative properties that people actually enjoy and take them seriously. They can no longer just write off what the properties fanbase may want, hand things off to 3rd rate productions, and/or put their own creative spin on it however they please. A good example of the changing landscape here would be 1993's Super Mario Bros vs 2019's Pokemon Detective Pikachu.

Some like Robert Redford are embracing it while other's like Scorsese are getting left behind. Probably the only reason he's really speaking out is that he had to go to Netflix to get his mob movie made.

Roger Ebert would also disagree with both Scorsese and Coppola. He was known for liking "high art" and "amusement park rides" equally. To him both were entertainment.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

My two cents about the Scorsese situation:

- He's right that Marvel films are artistically void
- His own films are far from high-art and have always been
- He has no idea what a "narrative film" is. Marvel films are all "narrative films" and have never aimed at being anything else. This is a non-narrative film (and a "high art" masterpiece):

 

[beowulf]

My two cents about the Scorsese situation:

- He's right that Marvel films are artistically void
- His own films are far from high-art and have always been
- He has no idea what a "narrative film" is. Marvel films are all "narrative films" and have never aimed at being anything else. This is a non-narrative film (and a "high art" masterpiece):

While I agree with most of what you posted. Saying the MCU films are all artistically void is not really true especially if you believe art is subjective.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

While I agree with most of what you posted. Saying the MCU films are all artistically void is not really true especially if you believe art is subjective.

I'd agree that on "craftulness" levels, some "artistry" is deployed. But if we're discussing narrative or cinematographic art, that's pretty much void. And I'm all for a subjective understanding of art, but only as Hans Robert Hauss put it - and to consider the MCU as art, you'd need a very poor "expectation horizon" (not sure that's the English traduction for his horizon d'attente).

 

[Jussi]

I'd agree that on "craftulness" levels, some "artistry" is deployed. But if we're discussing narrative or cinematographic art, that's pretty much void. And I'm all for a subjective understanding of art, but only as Hans Robert Hauss put it - and to consider the MCU as art, you'd need a very poor "expectation horizon" (not sure that's the English traduction for his horizon d'attente).

Well that's just the same thing as Scorsese and Coppola are doing: forcing their view of what's art art the only opinion. I personally choose not to view movies as art, just entertainment.

 

[Jussi]

Campea's rant:



OT, but looking forward to The Campea & Harloff show.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Well that's just the same thing as Scorsese and Coppola are doing: forcing their view of what's art art the only opinion. I personally choose not to view movies as art, just entertainment.

I'm not sure what you're refering to, but I'm pretty sure you didn't get my post. Jauss' aesthetics of reception isn't forcing anybody's view of what's art on you, it basically says that high art will be defined on an individual basis depending on the spectator's previous experience scope of the discipline. The larger the scope, the finer the art - and the larger the scope, the more bland would appear the works that follow a formulaic structure.

You choose not to view movies as art, probably because for whatever reason you don't take much pleasure in more challenging films (the films that would widen your experience scope). I get that, I used to only watch challenging films, and now most of the time I just need the break (watched the Hellboy remake yesterday, a smelly turd soup) - and that even though I have a fantastically large film experience scope. But you choosing not to view movies as art doesn't change the fact that great films are, indeed, works of art. If you watch Last Year at Marienbad, or Solaris, or that Marcel Duchamp short I posted and tell me that's just entertainment, you're kind of dumb - I mean, I agree that to appreciate these films, you have to be somehow "entertained" by them, but that's more of an intellectual bliss than the more visceral joys I get from Halloween II.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Most high-budget films aren't really "high art" anyway, so I don't know what the issue is.

Marvel movies are fun and generally worth the price of admission, but that's about it. I have enjoyed the ones I have seen, but I am not exactly clamoring to experience them again.

He's misguided in his frustration. Blame Hollywood execs for being afraid to take risks. Disney is just exploiting the market. Blame the game not the player, as they say.

Disney's business practices have shaped the market to what it is today. So to act like they are blameless in the current situation is pretty naive.

 

[Pilky01]

Campea's rant:

CLASSLESS!

Is that still a meme on HF?

So much whining.

 

[RandV]

I'm not sure what you're refering to, but I'm pretty sure you didn't get my post. Jauss' aesthetics of reception isn't forcing anybody's view of what's art on you, it basically says that high art will be defined on an individual basis depending on the spectator's previous experience scope of the discipline. The larger the scope, the finer the art - and the larger the scope, the more bland would appear the works that follow a formulaic structure.

You choose not to view movies as art, probably because for whatever reason you don't take much pleasure in more challenging films (the films that would widen your experience scope). I get that, I used to only watch challenging films, and now most of the time I just need the break (watched the Hellboy remake yesterday, a smelly turd soup) - and that even though I have a fantastically large film experience scope. But you choosing not to view movies as art doesn't change the fact that great films are, indeed, works of art. If you watch Last Year at Marienbad, or Solaris, or that Marcel Duchamp short I posted and tell me that's just entertainment, you're kind of dumb - I mean, I agree that to appreciate these films, you have to be somehow "entertained" by them, but that's more of an intellectual bliss than the more visceral joys I get from Halloween II.

See this is more in line with what I consider to be bullshit here, along with Coppola's comment: "we expect to learn something from cinema, we expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration."

This is what some people are totally into and that's fine but I just see it as a more of a personal preference or interest. Personally I'm a analytically minded introvert, the things being discussed what you're supposed to take away from 'cinema' I take from math/science/history. When I go to film or literature while I appreciate much of things that make up the "art" as it improves the overall quality what I'm really looking for things that spur the imagination. I can still enjoy stuff grounded in reality but I prefer the extra ordinary. My peak 'cinema' is stuff like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Game of Thrones S1-4, The Expanse, and yes relevant to this topic Avengers Infinity War/End Game.

 

[Jussi]

I'm not sure what you're refering to,

I tuned out after the first sentence, too long didn't read etc.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I tuned out after the first sentence, too long didn't read etc.

Better stay away from more complex works too, maybe just not for you.

See this is more in line with what I consider to be bull**** here, along with Coppola's comment: "we expect to learn something from cinema, we expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration."

This is what some people are totally into and that's fine but I just see it as a more of a personal preference or interest. Personally I'm a analytically minded introvert, the things being discussed what you're supposed to take away from 'cinema' I take from math/science/history. When I go to film or literature while I appreciate much of things that make up the "art" as it improves the overall quality what I'm really looking for things that spur the imagination. I can still enjoy stuff grounded in reality but I prefer the extra ordinary. My peak 'cinema' is stuff like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Game of Thrones S1-4, The Expanse, and yes relevant to this topic Avengers Infinity War/End Game.

What is the bullshit exactly? The term challenging? Nobody's saying that a film that spurs imagination cannot be challenging. What is not challenging, and especially to you, are films like Lord of the Rings (classic episodic structure), or The Avengers, because you know how to read them and not because they present fictions with impossible characters. I was refering to Solaris before - Solaris is a planet that hosts a single living structure, an ocean that communicates with other beings through recreation of their own memories - does that spur the imagination enough? Now try and read that film with the frameworks you've already established through the numerous sci-fi films you've experienced before and you will face a challenge. Tell me that's bullshit all you want, won't change a thing.

And if you enjoy maths, try Peter Greenaway. Maths, geometry, and what not... Maybe start with Drowning by Numbers, you don't know yet how to read that structure, but you should find out easily enough, and your experience scope will "gain something".

 

[xtra]

This whole thing has come up because Scorsese was hurt no movie house would play a 3 hour movie about gangsters talking. And honestly I agree. There are so many of that trope of movies it’s boring to me but I won’t call it not cinema.

To say there’s no character development in marvel movies is to deny an masterful journey that RDJ did as iron man.

honestly my ability to relate to Ironman is as real as my ability to relate to an mob hit man. I’m never going to be either of those things so I have to suspend disbelief one way or the other.

 

[beowulf]

I'm not sure what you're refering to, but I'm pretty sure you didn't get my post. Jauss' aesthetics of reception isn't forcing anybody's view of what's art on you, it basically says that high art will be defined on an individual basis depending on the spectator's previous experience scope of the discipline. The larger the scope, the finer the art - and the larger the scope, the more bland would appear the works that follow a formulaic structure.

You choose not to view movies as art, probably because for whatever reason you don't take much pleasure in more challenging films (the films that would widen your experience scope). I get that, I used to only watch challenging films, and now most of the time I just need the break (watched the Hellboy remake yesterday, a smelly turd soup) - and that even though I have a fantastically large film experience scope. But you choosing not to view movies as art doesn't change the fact that great films are, indeed, works of art. If you watch Last Year at Marienbad, or Solaris, or that Marcel Duchamp short I posted and tell me that's just entertainment, you're kind of dumb - I mean, I agree that to appreciate these films, you have to be somehow "entertained" by them, but that's more of an intellectual bliss than the more visceral joys I get from Halloween II.

So would you consider the first Matrix movie simple entertainment or artistic cinema?

 

[tacogeoff]

This whole thing has come up because Scorsese was hurt no movie house would play a 3 hour movie about gangsters talking. And honestly I agree. There are so many of that trope of movies it’s boring to me but I won’t call it not cinema.

To say there’s no character development in marvel movies is to deny an masterful journey that RDJ did as iron man.

honestly my ability to relate to Ironman is as real as my ability to relate to an mob hit man. I’m never going to be either of those things so I have to suspend disbelief one way or the other.

Really? His character did develop but in no way was it a masterful journey imo.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

So would you consider the first Matrix movie simple entertainment or artistic cinema?

Oh I really don't think it's necessarily one or the other. And I think that the wider your scope is, the easier it is to read interesting elements into pretty common films. Concerning the Matrix, I think I've refered to it a few times on here regarding its links to Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation. It's certainly a commercial film, but it has enough juice in it to satisfy more intellectual/artsy readings.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I don't think cinema has to touch minds to be effective or being transcendent art, at least not overtly or through societal/political/emotional ideas. As mentioned above, I think Last Year at Marienbad is a perfect example of that. It's, IMO, the greatest movie I've ever watched but I didn't step away from it having gained any new knowledge about myself outside of aesthetical rapture/what can make me tingle through both its narrative construct and cinematography. That doesn't mean that a narrative film - and as VD rightly put it, Scorcese is wrong. MCU are narrative films, just as his are. Although they're of a much poorer quality than his early works and on par with some of his post-2000 movies - can't be high art, but just that the terms high-art or low-art to me transcend artforms in general. Low art to me isn't a concept so much as its a way to define the quality of a piece. There is nothing stopping superhero movies from high art but an (understandable) search for profits and the bad sensibilities of their creative teams (and whether that's a restriction imposed on them by studios is of no importance to me). But it does have a strong effect on them being bad art. And I'd take disagree with anyone who considered comic books like Calvin and Hobbes or Krazy Kat low art because of their medium or accessibility.

But I think that there's an aspect that isn't considered here by folks like Kareeem Abdul-Jabar. While I enjoyed reading his THR piece, the argument that high art has to make us wiser (although it can do so) is wrong and what is missing from both sides of the argument and current mainstream, commercial art. An art piece doesn't need to have anything to say. What matters is how the piece is formed, delivered and how it does what it does (which I guess makes me more inclined to formalism in a way). In short, style is what matters above anything. Art doesn't have to inherently mean anything in defined, direct terms. So in short, I disagree with KAJ, James Gunn, who comes off looking like an insecure man who's struggling with the idea that his comic book films aren't treated with the same respect as more ambitious works, and Scorcese and Coppola, two directors who I think have a very flawed approach to what high art or narrative actually means.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with a film or a story that's trying to convey an idea or a statement. I just don't think it's particularly important to the recipient of the piece and is probably of more value to the artist as a guiding post in its execution than it is to the enjoyment of the recipient. A point should never take precedence over a style or the organic construction of a story. Some great artists are able to pull of both seamlessly and that's neat, but it's not particularly important. Any great idea worth expanding upon is probably better off in a non-fiction piece and what I think art gains in coveying humanist ideas is in accessibility and entertainment as compared to academic works. The reason some people are snobs about superhero films is because they don't achieve anything in particular. They don't have style nor are they great, well-written stories that have emotional impact (at least to this viewer). The more someone broadens their palette when it comes to films (or music or literature) and comes to appreciate the possibilities offered by the different mediums, I don't think there's anything surprising or mean-spirited about someone not getting a similar kick from movies that even the most hardcore fans can admit are formulaic. We wouldn't expect any different in regards to other fields but folks always seem to have more of a personal stake in art.