I have to agree with Scorsese here. I don't remember the last superhero movie I saw where I didn't walk out with a yawn. They're just so predictable. Everyday guy or gal gets bestowed with or discovers powers of some sort and cut to blowing a bunch of stuff up. End credits with some teaser afterwards. And that's just the first of what will inevitably be many more movies culminating in blowing even bigger things up (has any of them gotten to the point of blowing up a whole planet yet?)
If I'm being fair, this predictability problem is pretty rampant in Hollywood. I rewatched Pulp Fiction recently and I remember seeing it for the first time and being blown away. It was anything but predictable. It was hilarious and disturbing at the same time but, most of all, it was creative. To my mind, there's little true creativity to movies anymore.
Before I lost interest in Marvel movies altogether, I used to get annoyed at how they would show these little glimmers of creativity, only to then crush them under the boot of The Marvel Formula.
The most interesting parts of the early Marvel movies weren't the super powers or special effects, it was the little notes they gave to their protagonists to humanize them -- Tony Stark as a selfish alcoholic, Thor as a cheerfully oblivious fish out of water, Captain America as earnest but painfully naïve. They seemed to be opening up the possibility of superhero stories that were also human stories, rather than just the kind of juvenile power fantasies Moore is decrying here. But each movie would eventually put that stuff aside and build to yet another Epic Battle as climax, which was disappointing.
In retrospect, it's pretty obvious that the stuff that I found appealing was the result of Marvel, still finding its feet, allowing its filmmakers to doodle in the margins of their studio-approved blueprint a bit. Once the movies took off and the Marvel Formula was proven, they no longer needed to allow space for such divergence from the formula. So we get movies like the Avengers entries, where the entire story is just moving chess pieces around to get them into place for the inevitable Epic Battle.
The Marvel movie I always wanted to see was one that put the Epic Battles aside completely, and focused 100% on telling a character-driven story. Something like the Matt Fraction Hawkeye comics, where the point of the story is deepening our understanding of this one character, grounding him in the context of the brownstone he lives in, the ways he interacts with his neighbors, and their common problem of potentially losing their homes to an aggressive developer. Human-scale stories about human beings.
In other words, I didn't want Avengers: Endgame, I wanted My Dinner with Ultron. But once the Marvel juggernaut picked up enough steam, that was exactly the movie I was never going to get.
> The Marvel movie I always wanted to see was one that put the Epic Battles aside completely, and focused 100% on telling a character-driven story. Something like the Matt Fraction Hawkeye comics, where the point of the story is deepening our understanding of this one character, grounding him in the context of the brownstone he lives in, the ways he interacts with his neighbors, and their common problem of potentially losing their homes to an aggressive developer. Human-scale stories about human beings.
It kinda sounds like what you dislike most about superhero movies is the superpowered heroes.
Seems more like he's upset about the stories being about the super powers rather than the effects of the super powers. Superheroes are always as powerful as the plot needs them to be. Of course they're going to win in the end with their power. But most of Marvel's movies just come down to reacting to the movie's 'twist', and believing in themselves to become stronger.
The more interesting ramifications/consequences are often only footnotes. Not every problem can be solved with super strength - Show those.
Not really. Read All Star Superman for a great example of how you can have a story be about the fantastical and make it very human.
That story is about Superman basically becoming overexposed to sunlight in a way that makes him progressively more powerful (than Superman was already), but it is also going to kill him.
It is about what a man like that might do when he knows he is going to die and a lot of it is Superman's connection with people.
> To my mind, there's little true creativity to movies anymore.
It's important to specify in mainstream cinema, if one wants to make this critique.
Although it's a different context, one hears with some frequence the same about videogames, but always omitting the fact that the creative product of modern indepedent studios is evergreen (very simply, due to the considerably lower entry barriers than 20/30 years ago).
I don't see it any differently than the rise of science fiction as a genre. Science fiction can be a platform for storytelling, but it can also be a dumb excuse to use special effects, or to fantasize about the future, or any other amount of vapid justifications. If you blow it off completely due to the few movies you've seen, you're gonna miss out on a lot of excellent storytelling. For example, if you've dismissed The Watchmen or The Dark Knight because you think Iron Man is dumb, you're missing out.
This is exactly the type of arguments I've had recently about Star Wars and Star Trek. Both franchises are now owned by a corporation whose interest is to serve that to as many people as possible. If you use the latest offerings as the barometer for whether these sci-fi properties are "good", you'll be stripping yourself of some fantastic science fiction simply because of its veneer.
Avengers: End Game is a prime example. Filmmakers have gotten too liberal with using deus ex machinas to push a story along. And even with these lazy devices, these films are still riddled with plot holes and absurdity.
It's not like the source material in the comics is different. These are superhero stories with characters like Thor, the Guardians and the Incredible Hulk. Do you really think they won't be a bit absurd?
It's unreasonable to expect hard science in superhero comics and films, but if you pay attention you get a "are you kidding me with this b.s.?" type of reaction.
Just take the opening scene in Endgame, for example. Tony Stark, stranded in space many light years from Earth, with mere minutes left of breathable oxygen. Captain Marvel conveniently appears out of nowhere and escorts him back to Earth and Tony makes a full recovery. That's lazy writing.
How about how Tony Stark conveniently invents time travel? Another example of poor writing and lame plot devices to move the story along.
I agree with those examples and they annoyed me, but I think they were done to save time more than anything, which is a product of having to shove so much material into a movie that serves as a culmination for twenty-one other movies.
Still, it's a fair criticism of superhero movies, and Star Wars.
Not necessarily to save time, the first one was because Captain Marvel was a late entry and they had to shoehorn her into the plot somehow. All her appearances in that movie had an alternate and more cohesive way It could have went, such as Stark and Nebula finishing the rudimentary repairs they were seen doing and limping home on their own power.
Time travel was also mentioned in the Ant-Man and the Wasp stinger, so it didn't completely come out of nowhere. Stark didn't invent it, he invented a navigation system.
I don't agree with the "it's not cinema" line, but I do agree with "It isn't the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being."
I've watched almost all Marvel and DC movies, and I quite enjoy them. They're a creative endeavor and they're pretty cool. But I sometimes side with Ian McKellen griping about greenscreens on The Hobbit set. Getting your emotions out to a blank space with no feedback must be quite a challenge.
Iron Man 3 is all about PTSD.
Black Panther has a atrong theme about the damage done to children when they are abandoned.
Captain Marvel is about the way women are taught to keep their strengths in check.
Endgame has Thor's whole plot being about dealing with dismal failure and depression, and how this doesn't have to define you as a person.
I mean, sure, they aren't incredibly deep approaches to these topics. But there is definitely a thread of emotional, psychological experiences running through the Marvel movies.
Eh, not so sure. Black Panther is the most critically acclaimed of the bunch and I haven't seen many people describing the movie using this angle. Sure, it's something that's there, but it's not the meat and the purpose of the movie. Certainly not how Black Panther is describe on its marketing material.
Just check say its IMDB or iTunes or Google Play or the back of the DVD is all about "a powerful enemy reappears putting the world at risk". Even the foe himself states its reason as a revenge for how blacks are/were treated around the world and he needs Wakanda's tech and weapon.
Hey, don't get me wrong. Black Panther is a good movie, and an actual good story. But check some of Scorcese's movies description or blurbs or reviews, or trailers. I think Black Panther's story is secondary to the spectacle. And that's fine! It doesn't go as far as Transformers into the abyss :)
> Everyday guy or gal gets bestowed with or discovers powers of some sort and cut to blowing a bunch of stuff up.
That comes across the same way as if I said "all romance movies end up with a couple, who don't get along, and there's some obstacle in their romance, and then they discover love, and end with smooching- end credits with some sappy music."
Yes, the elements you pointed out are a predictable part of (many, but not all) super hero movies- but there's plenty of variation if you dig just a little bit deeper. Iron Man 2 has themes of substance abuse and trust, Black Panther questioned the roles of loyalty and honor in running a country... the recent Spiderman had themes of responsibility and whether it's okay to abdicate it...
> To my mind, there's little true creativity to movies anymore
And this sounds a lot like the patent office commissioner who said, about a century ago, "we should shut down the patent office, everything that can be invented already has been."
Yes, there's a lot of unoriginality in cinema, and also a lot of originality, and both of those statements have been true for about a century. Maybe you just need to take a break from cinema for a while, you're sounding burned out.
> That comes across the same way as if I said "all romance movies end up with a couple, who don't get along, and there's some obstacle in their romance, and then they discover love, and end with smooching- end credits with some sappy music."
I find this to be a very good comparison. Most superhero movies and most romance movies follow a pretty strict template from which they don't deviate, so that you can usually very easily predict plot points and in fact can get frustrated if they deviate from the template, even if briefly. These genres of movies are (by the most part) made in a way you can get up, go outside to use the restroom or to buy more popcorn, come back and instantly understand the point of the movie you're at and resume your enjoyment.
This makes for very formulaic, predictable and (to me) boring cinema. Other people enjoy it and in fact get upset in the rare cases where this template gets subverted. (And thankfully, very occasionally it does get subverted)
Would you consider the recent Joker movie to be a superhero movie? I do absolutely consider it cinema.
If we define cinema to exclude boring and predictable, then a lot of US cinema stops being so, super hero movie or not. The same goes for most Hollywood comedies and tons and tons of love stories. Guess it is time to switch to French arthouse.
Guess my point is, whether a movie is considered cinema or not has little to do with whether it is a super hero movie.
yes! i recently saw old boy for the first time. disturbing, thought-provoking, well-made, well-acted, emotional, tense, even funny at times, but oh-so-disturbing.
> To my mind, there's little true creativity to movies anymore.
Ehh, when I see people who say this (or say they don't make good music anymore), I just assume they don't actually listen/watch anything new anymore.
There are obviously issues in the movie industry between viewer expectations, publisher resource allocation, and competition with streaming services, it's kind of one big crap shoot. But there are plenty of amazing movies coming out every year from both big and small productions. Scorsese himself listed plenty of good examples in his piece (Ari Aster being a personal favorite of mine), but there is plenty of other directors out there doing great work. As a big fan of horror films, I honestly think there has never been a better time for horror movies. Outside of horror, there is plenty of other great stuff too. If you are really looking for creative films, I am a big fan of basically any A24 published movie - they really do a good job of finding and supporting creative teams.
Nah, it is just grumpy old men, who when they were young were castigated by the previous grumpy old men. Capra excoriated Coppola for Apocalypse now, and others of his age did the same to other younger filmmakers and their subject matter.
I'm not sure why you're getting voted down when that's a perfectly valid point.
I watch GalaxyQuest, Terminator, Jurassic Park, Robocop, Fight Club, and other films almost every year. They're predictable to me but I still find them to be fantastic films with a lot to say and they help remind me to look outside of myself.
Your examples prove my point. Those are all wonderfully creative movies (not sure about Robocop since I don't remember it much) I never said I wanted to be surprised. I said I wanted creativity which is something I personally find lacking in many movies these days and especially in the comic book movies.
This is probably why the parent was getting downvoted. I blew right past that and conflated surprise with unpredictability when they're, arguably, not the same thing.
I certainly judge it that way. I can't stand rewatching a movie and I really can't stand watching a movie that is predictable. I beleive this is related to my personality type though. Maybe it's an ADD thing?
Scorsese misses the point of the genre. Superhero movies, and any sort of movie franchise, are about getting to revisit a world that you like. We care less about whether the story represents a "window into our soul" and more about soaking in the environment that brings us some level of joy.
Scorsese doesn't understand this because he likes mafia movies; not the type of universe you want to live in. Mafia movies are about taking a peak into a grimy sort of world that we all know exists to some degree but don't want to be part of ourselves.
> Superhero movies, and any sort of movie franchise, are about getting to revisit a world that you like. We care less about whether the story represents a "window into our soul" and more about soaking in the environment that brings us some level of joy.
This sounds like a theme park to me, which was exactly Scorsese's point.
His point was to move the genre away from movies he likes into a box with things he perceives to be lesser. But he's wrong, a movie has more in common with other movies than it does a physical location where you go to have fun.
> Spiderverse, for example, is partially about overcoming self-doubt.
this is a laughably bad example. successful art at its best can reveal something new about yourself or the human condition; it can make you feel emotions that you don't even have words for.
overcoming self-doubt is something we teach children.
You really need to do some research on Scorsese if you think he is only interested in mafia movies. You completely undercut about 75% of the movies his makes, and the work he does outside of directing when it comes to supporting others in the film industry.
Happy to be educated. Movies about crime and organized crime in particular is a major part of Scorsese's filmography, and certainly his most popular films. I haven't seen every movie he's made but I'm not aware of any that could be called "uplifting". My point was that the types of films he creates hits at a particular emotion that is far from the emotions evoked by so-called event movies.
Well you point is correct then, because he definitely doesn't have anything that would be considered "event movies" (which I assume by this you mean tent pole movies like what Marvel does, or other summer blockbusters).
With that said, my counter point was mainly to point out that you boxing in Scorsese as the "mob" guy is really bizarre. He has plenty of other kind's of movies, some of which you might find uplifting. The Aviator, Silence, or Hugo might fall into the uplifting category, but I feel a lot of his work (and the work of good artists) ends up being more nuanced to the point where associating one emotion to it is kind of diminishing the work.
Not just event movies, any sort of movies that can be considered "feel-good" in any way is pretty outside of what Scorsese does. I haven't seen Hugo and maybe that applies! Maybe he's had 1 or 2 or 3 that apply, I can't say. It's still fair to say that it's not the typical type of movie he creates, which was my only point.
"Hugo" was beautifully done, was uplifting, and wasn't crime related in the way other of his works are. I just finished the book it was based on and he was very faithful to it.
In Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Peter's Dad is revealed to be Ego the Living Planet and they end up destroying him in the end (the planet doesn't really explode; it kind of disintegrates into itself, but close enough).
If I'm being fair, this predictability problem is pretty rampant in Hollywood. I rewatched Pulp Fiction recently and I remember seeing it for the first time and being blown away. It was anything but predictable. It was hilarious and disturbing at the same time but, most of all, it was creative. To my mind, there's little true creativity to movies anymore.