Bad cinema can (and arguably must) stimulate the emotions, but I don't think that is what Scorsese is trying to get across here.
The marvel movies or whatever may stimulate emotions in us, but they do so primarily by dramatizing conditions which are so universal that we can all identify with them. That has limited artistic potential.
The critical phrase in Scorcese's quote, up there, is "to another human being". Literally almost anyone with a dead father misses their father. You aren't learning anything about the human condition by being reminded of the fact that you loved him. Being so reminded isn't bad by any means, or valueless. These movies help us process our emotions and live in the world.
But they aren't necessarily doing the hard artistic work of carrying you into the mind of someone else whose experiences, desires, pains, might be quite different than your own. They definitely aren't doing the artistic work of offering serious critique of the world.
These films are definitely escapists. I don't think Alan Moore is against escapism. I think he is worried by its total domination as a cultural form.
I'm not advocating for any sort of prescriptive definition of art, obviously. There are certainly lots of ways to talk about art, and in many respects the Marvel movies meet the definition.
But just as it would be absurd to be totalitarian about the definition art, it would be absurd to suggest that The Avengers 12 or whatever is identical to, for instance, Cinema Paradiso, and that there isn't something in the latter film that is missing from the former.
From there its not a leap to ask broader questions about what sorts of films dominate popular culture and whether that state of affairs is good or not.
This is a discussion of art, and thus the human condition. We're unlikely to find anything like a concrete conclusion. But its note futile either.
I would argue that universality isn't an artistic quality because it's the exact opposite of individual expression. Art can be universal but something that's intended to be universal is rarely impactful or expressive enough to be art.
Art is meant to stoke and provoke thought and discussion. It's pointless if it only evokes passive agreement.
Edit: To clarify, I disagree that the Marvel films are not art or cinema.
If all important experiences were universal then communication would be superfluous, if not, in some sense, impossible.
We don't need to do much work to explain what we all experience. There is no virtuosity of the obvious. Communicating those things we don't share is the province of skill and a particular kind of value not present in the immediate and universal.
The marvel movies or whatever may stimulate emotions in us, but they do so primarily by dramatizing conditions which are so universal that we can all identify with them. That has limited artistic potential.
The critical phrase in Scorcese's quote, up there, is "to another human being". Literally almost anyone with a dead father misses their father. You aren't learning anything about the human condition by being reminded of the fact that you loved him. Being so reminded isn't bad by any means, or valueless. These movies help us process our emotions and live in the world.
But they aren't necessarily doing the hard artistic work of carrying you into the mind of someone else whose experiences, desires, pains, might be quite different than your own. They definitely aren't doing the artistic work of offering serious critique of the world.
These films are definitely escapists. I don't think Alan Moore is against escapism. I think he is worried by its total domination as a cultural form.