
Martin Scorsese: I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain - Tomasz_Papka
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/indepth/martin-scorsese-i-said-marvel-movies-arent-cinema-let-me-explain/ar-AAJSMU9?li=BBr5KbJ
======
hannofcart
> In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are
> now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s
> a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters
> than ever.

I can't agree more with this. 5 years back I remember taking a chance with
little known movies that was playing at the theatre near me, like Mr.Turner,
watching it with my wife and walking out of the theatre completely moved by
them. There is magic in that big screen format. But now all that runs at the
theatres near me are one Marvel movie after another. They're not bad; but none
of them are truly memorable. None of them leaves you with a sense of
profundity that Scorsese or Clint Eastwood movie does.

~~~
WorldMaker
I think this is much more of the fault of rise of "infinite cable channels"
and then streaming services (Netflix, et al) than the franchise films
themselves. A lot of the contracts that the cable networks and streaming
services have signed in the last decade or so have pushed a lot of independent
cinema into cable/streaming, including "locking down" exclusivity on a lot of
the classics that used to be free or cheap to small community theaters. For
better _and_ worse, the small independent cinema moved directly into people's
homes. On the one hand it is more convenient, but on the other hand it is easy
to lament the loss of the small community event gathering around a "lost"
classic or enjoying a second or third class film together on a big screen.

It's also unfortunate in how losing those small community events snowballs.
Franchise films are all that's left in most of the theater chains, because
those can still be "big" community events that can compete with the
convenience of people's homes. Getting people out of the house for a smaller
event gets more challenging when folks don't do it regularly.

------
HONEST_ANNIE
Movies for the large audience must always entertain, but you can entertain
different ways. It's hard to describe what the 'Cinema' way is but it's easy
to recognize when it's absent.

Here is a short list of things that make blockbuster movies not Cinema:

1\. CGI and the visuals are technically pretty, but coming from the same
standard tooling or pipeline. You can recognize that it's just more of the
same. Examples of something creative: The Fifth Element (1997), Immortal
(2004), Sin City (2005), Tron, ..

2\. Action scenes are made from standardized sequences, postures and phrases.
5 minutes of action rarely matters for the plot and it's not fun to watch.

3\. Dialogue and characters are extremely stereotypical. Power fantasy with
some jokes and funny lines.

Some movies are just a part of a format. It requires talent to stick into
format and not bore the target audience. Just provide what they want better.
Changing director does not change the overall format. Directors are the to
perfect the execution, not create something new.

------
pedrocr
I've stopped going to theaters because the sound is often unbearably loud for
me. These days a projector and sound system for use at home are quite
affordable. A white wall at night works great for projection too, so you don't
need a specifically designed room. At this point our cinema experience is the
best it's ever been, watching whatever movies we like, without going to the
theater at all.

We may never return to the ideal theater experience he wants but I actually
think streaming and good projection technology are already delivering
something better.

~~~
2OEH8eoCRo0
I'm the opposite. I mostly choose to see big budget films released in IMAX
which isn't very many. All of the rest I think that I agree- the home
experience is satisfying for the vast majority of other films.

~~~
pedrocr
I don't think the home experience is already fully competitive without
spending a lot. Just that the theater experience has enough inconveniences
that it's getting close. For things like very wide/large formats and immersion
maybe when VR gets really good resolution it will be competitive but I agree a
theater still has the edge.

------
sp527
I’m so impressed that he took the route of doubling down on his “F you, you’re
wrong” that made multiple generations of tasteless moviegoers irate. You don’t
see enough of people standing up for their controversial opinions in the face
of public backlash anymore, which made this a quite refreshing read.

~~~
kimjongtrill
still moved me to eye-rolls and "ok, boomer" sentiments. like fine, we get it,
you think movies-- sorry "cinema"\-- in your day was better and now popular
culture is moving in a different direction. ho hum...

------
eldenbishop
He talks about designing a film for the big screen experience but every film
he mentioned except maybe "North by Northwest" is vastly superior in a good
home theater. "Persona" by Ingmar Bergman is a wonderful film but would gain
nothing on a modern digital screen with Atmos sound and speakers that can
break windows. His preferred movies are intimate, patient and beautiful but do
not in any way take advantage of the format. Many classic films are actual
big-screen spectacles like "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", "Lawrence of
Arabia", "Wizard of Oz", anything by Akira Kurosawa and hundreds of others but
his tastes strike me as explicitly and decidedly "small-screen" and almost
anti-cinema if you consider the "cinema" distinction primarily the larger
format. Small, intimate movies are great but are sub-par experiences in a
cinema next to popcorn munchers and mobile phones. I am a huge movie buff who
actually had a Filmstruck subscription and still pay for MUBI. I love the
movies he loves but they do not work well in theaters. I would much rather
watch these at home. I'll go to the theater for Marvel because those movies
are much better in a theater. This is simply not true for his tastes.

------
mickotron
On a slightly unrelated note, did anyone watch the new film Dolemite Is My
Name? It celebrates a film financed by a single individual (sort of) that
noone in the industry wanted to touch. It's important to recognise that even
then (1970s) it was hard to pitch new ideas for films and get funding. That
said, Dolemite would have been a tough sell for a newbie film producer.

Regular people are smarter and want more complexity than the film execs give
them credit for. I have fond memories of going to the cinema and watching a
lesser known or indie film, or going to Blockbuster and picking out strange
unknown titles , and having an actual human experience, rather than just being
entertained.

Sadly we have more "choice" with streaming, but a limited one. Only those
sanctioned for our consumption. Sort of like an "any colour you like, but..."
scenario.

I hope that those with big bold or different ideas can continue to create in
the new paradigm. Good on Scorsese in making the Netflix deal and keeping his
principles.

------
bynkman
It's true, media and cinema have changed. Though it's through him and other
directors of his generation (Lucas, Spielberg, Coppalla), the "Movie Brats"
that helped change it. The old model, which he is being nostalgic for was
failing. The Movie Brats came along and changed that, revitalizing the movie
industry. Out with the old, in with the new. (New, lighter better film cameras
in the 70s helped.)

And now, studio execs are geared towards profit. A franchise, big budget film
is more likely to make a profit than a small film. So studios are less likely
to fund small films.

Also, in the further pursuit of profits, studios take bigger profits for
theater rights to show a film. Which is easier for big theater chains to do,
and much more difficult for independent to do.

At the moment, there are very few solutions to these problems. Making small
films are expensive. Independent film makers rarely make a profit.

------
onemoresoop
There are some comments for this article in a post from 2 days ago [0], but
this might deserve a second discussion.

[0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21448601](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21448601)

