When Martin Scorsese said “Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema.” He’s right. Yes, it’s a motion picture, and it’s entertainment. But superhero movies are a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but in the end signifying nothing. They have plastic, unrelateable characters that are there solely to be cheered and booed with some pseudoscientific mysterious nonsense that stands in for the gods and devils of mythology. If CG wasn’t used to produce mind-numbing effects, the movies would look ridiculous and absurd. At least some older movies (like Superman I and II in the '70s) had Superman learn about the limits of his power and his ability to be a hero.
The same problem is with Star Trek. The TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY were about the characters and ideas. If the story is too tied up in the treknobabble or speculative technology, it becomes boring. It’s about working together and growing from experience. Once it became about battles, speculative technology, petty squabbles and soap opera dynamics between characters, it became boring and unexceptional, just another expensive mediocre spectacle.
“Cinema” is what movie snobs call movies that achieve a certain level of snootiness that the snobs consider “art”. By saying the MCU isn’t cinema he’s saying the mcu isn’t art. He is incorrect. Their quality is debatable, but they qualify as art simply by being movies.
Thank you for this comment, I’m in agreement with Scorsese since he made the statement.
The films are entertaining for sure, but none of the Marvel films are what I’d call timeless masterpieces nor could I imagine them having that capability. The worst part is how Disney still try and bully cinemas to showing mostly films by them and their subsidiaries - other films here sometimes stay in a cinema for a week or so at most, and most slip under the radar for me to discover years later.
When Martin Scorsese said “Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema.” He’s right. Yes, it’s a motion picture, and it’s entertainment. But superhero movies are a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but in the end signifying nothing. They have plastic, unrelateable characters that are there solely to be cheered and booed with some pseudoscientific mysterious nonsense that stands in for the gods and devils of mythology. If CG wasn’t used to produce mind-numbing effects, the movies would look ridiculous and absurd. At least some older movies (like Superman I and II in the '70s) had Superman learn about the limits of his power and his ability to be a hero.
The same problem is with Star Trek. The TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY were about the characters and ideas. If the story is too tied up in the treknobabble or speculative technology, it becomes boring. It’s about working together and growing from experience. Once it became about battles, speculative technology, petty squabbles and soap opera dynamics between characters, it became boring and unexceptional, just another expensive mediocre spectacle.
Scorsese is wrong. Bad art is still art.
He didn’t say the MCU is not art.
“Cinema” is what movie snobs call movies that achieve a certain level of snootiness that the snobs consider “art”. By saying the MCU isn’t cinema he’s saying the mcu isn’t art. He is incorrect. Their quality is debatable, but they qualify as art simply by being movies.
Where do you get that from?
Thank you for this comment, I’m in agreement with Scorsese since he made the statement.
The films are entertaining for sure, but none of the Marvel films are what I’d call timeless masterpieces nor could I imagine them having that capability. The worst part is how Disney still try and bully cinemas to showing mostly films by them and their subsidiaries - other films here sometimes stay in a cinema for a week or so at most, and most slip under the radar for me to discover years later.