Last movie you watched......

Scoundrels, from 1982. Excellent videography.

 

Maybe that is the answer with some, but Coppola went beyond saying they weren't cinema by labeling them as "despicable." So is that true of all movies that don't aspire to be on a level with Citizen Kane?

The idea that MCU movies are all the same is lazy at best. It isn't accurate. There is no way either Scorsese or Coppala has seen all three Captain American movies, for example. For those interested in putting some actual thought into this, are First Avenger and The Winter Soldier the same movie? The latter is the first movie that comes to mind when think of the lazier criticisms of the MCU. I know Black Panther got the best picture nomination, but The Winter Soldier was probably the MCU movie that best fit the definition of a quality film.

 

"In the Shadow of the Moon" on Netflix; an original offering. Boy was that a waste of time. I'm reconsidering whether the Netflix/Amazon Prime original offerings are even worth it. They're coming across like the goods that are now found at the "Outlets"; what used to be quality goods that are marked down, they are stuff with the same name brand but are now specifically made for the outlet not the original store. Hence, less than full quality.

 

Took me a while to find what I think is Coppola's full quote, which sounds a lot like a red carpet grab at some film event in France.

When Martin Scorsese says that Marvel pictures are not cinema, he’s right, because we expect to learn something from cinema. We expect to gain something—some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration. I don’t know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again. Martin was kind when he said it’s not cinema. He didn’t say it’s despicable, which I just say it is.

I'm not sure he's entirely wrong, especially regarding X-Men, which is nothing but origin stories all the way down. It is sort of cynical to keep selling the same experience as different movies. Not sure I'd go so far as to call it 'despicable.' It's a business.

It's analogous to the theme park / roller coaster thing. You're buying a ticket on the same ride in order to experience the same thrill. How often you do so is up to you.

But I'm pretty sure that's also the opposite of 'art.'

And while there's surely a tremendous amount of care and craft in many of the MCU titles, it's hard to credit them as 'art' rather than simply 'artful.'

But only a very narrow band of movies in the whole history of the medium rise to the level of 'art.'

This Slate piece (!) catalogs the upset and the arguments fairly.

Francis Ford Coppola Thinks Marvel Movies Are “Despicable”

 

The X-Men movies aren't part of the MCU. Are we talking about comic book movies in general or just the MCU? If we're going to talk about all comic book movies, then we need to include films like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. The former is an origin story, but the latter is something altogether different. The point is, there is a wide variety in type and quality among comic book movies, just as you would find in any genre. Sin City is not the same as Iron Man. Both have strengths and failings, but they are both comic book movies.

If you restrict yourself to just the MCU, I'll go back to the Captain American trilogy. All three movies are different in type and style.

To claim that we don't gain any inspiration or feeling from any of those movies is a load of crap. It is the rambling of an arrogant windbag who is too full of himself who doesn't like sharing the screen with something he assumes is beneath him without even watching it. I have zero patience for such willful ignorance from people who are smarter than that.

 

People don't like to be told to grow up.

 

It does tend to be hard to swallow coming from people speaking from a place of ignorance.

 

If Siskel and Ebert were still around, I think their views on this whole MCU debate would have been interesting:

To be honest, I just find this tiring. I'm an MCU fan, but I can appreciate Scorsese and other 'cinema' just as much, but now apparently you have people who seem to think you have to pick one or the other. I didn't really have a big problem with Scorsese saying the 'theme park' movies weren't his cup of tea, but now others are just piling on and making judgments about people based on what movies they happen to like. As with the silly debates about what music you like, or what you like on your pizza or burger, watch, listen to or eat what you like; you don't have to justify it to other people.

 

Netflix is magnitudes worse than Amazon for garbage originals. Netflix's strategy is to pump out content knowing it will end up with a lot of shit product.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Netflix actually makes many movies, right? It seems like they purchase movies (many of which have probably been passed over by other studios) for distribution, such as "The Cloverfield Paradox" (which was shit). Same with Scorsese's upcoming flick, "The Irishman."

 

They have different levels of what is considered original content. They buy stuff already produced, they agree to buy what somebody or some company is planning to produce (in competition with other distributors), and produce or commission their own movies from beginning to end. The last level is the true shit.

 

They also buy projects that studios have lost confidence in on the cheap. Often there are very good reasons that a studio does not want to go to the expense of distributing and marketing a movie - such as it being shit after all they could do to fix it.