Are Marvel Movies Cinema?

Do you know what Netflix is?

The Irishman is Netflix' most successful theatrical release of all time. I have told you repeatedly that it was only released in cinemas on a limited run to be eligible for awards season. Yet you seem unable to take in this fact, and instead seem to be of the opinion that because it didn't recoup box office receipts of $130,000,000 in 2 weeks it must be forever catalogued as unsuccessful.

At this point you're either on a massive wind up or you're completely unable to comprehend the simple concept of anything beyond multiplex cinemas.

I think the thing that is being lost is the attention span as the OP pointed out in his OP. Cinema is not the only art form that is being eaten away through a lack of interest in more complex or mature works. The same can be said of literature where genre fiction has eaten up the market.


The market rules but the market is ruled by taste and taste has changed due to a lack of attention. We all have so many avenues for entertainment and information and we are constantly being drawn away from whatever we are doing by our phones which offer us the world at our fingertips literally.


The slow burn or slow buildup is lost. A film must grab our attention and keep grabbing at it to survive this market. Inarritu has very cleverly and ironically examined just this conundrum in Birdman, a film about the disintegration of a man's mind as his superhero alter ego becomes real to him. Birdman now there is a picture that grabs and doesn't let go.

The original question asked was, Is the MCU cinema to which the answer is yes.
Cinemas show mainstream movies because they have to make a profit.
Arthouse films do not as a rule and tends to be shown in smaller venues.
Also who defines what is the best film?
The awards ceremony people...No.
The filmmaker...No.
The actors...No.
The best movie is the one the individual chooses and that will change throughout their life.
Some will choose a Fincher, Some will choose a Hitchcock, others a Nolan, taste and preference is subjective and anyone belittleing anothers taste is a snob.
As for Taki whatsisname I've not heard of him, whatsisname is used in the UK when someone forgets or doesn't know of someone and wasn't meant as a slur.

So to answer the original OPs question, yes MCU is cinema.
Cinemas need to make money, MCU makes them money.

__________________
Has anyone seen my lightsaber?

https://digitaldecor.threadless.com

https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/7-stewart-smith

To be fair, there's the literal title and then there's the underlying meaning of the question. I don't imagine anyone really disputes that these movies are, well, movies. It's just a pithy way to ask whether they have any serious artistic aspirations or meaning at all, or are just "content."

For the record, I come down favorably on their side, mostly because I think cinephiles misunderstand and even weird undervalue popular culture as an entity, and speaking to it as a genuine skill, creating a different kind of poignancy than is more traditionally valued among more seemingly profound works. But that, I think, is what the question really is, whatever someone's answer to it may be.

There is this sense, as a relative newbie to this place, that those who like 'popular culture' movies are looked down upon by some on here.
I'd rather watch a blockbuster than a Fellini, that is my taste, it doesn't make me or anyone else who likes blockbusters a lesser person.
I want to be entertained when I watch a movie not bored to death by what is in my opinion some longwinded pretentious rubbish.
That is not to say others can't enjoy that Fellini etc that is individual choice and taste.
Cinema to me is a large windowless room with a few hundred chairs and a large screen where a movie is shown to a large crowd of patrons.
Most cinema complexes don't show that many non blockbusters because they just aren't that popular (with a few exceptions).
Plus I like to give my subwoofer a workout when watching and Iron Man, Batman and Spiderman do that just fine.

That's all fine to say but you then went and said:

and claimed that every single Netflix original film is unsuccessful before it's even released because by default it won't make the budget spent on it at the box office. Which is as hilarious as it is odd.

Are Marvel Movies Cinema?

Yes...but ONLY if we call something that is assembled from a template by using meta data and demographic studies, thus turning a product into a cash cow by 'corporate cinema'.

Addressing the comment that those who like popular movies are looked down upon here

I'll never quite get the anxiety fans of blockbusters experience when the qualities of smaller films start to be discussed. There is always this sense that they feel they are being looked down upon, even as the entire cinematic complex is catering to their exact tastes. And that it isn't their films that are acting like some kind of cinematic eclipse that nearly blot out the existence of other more meagre films.

If anything, it's fans of smaller fare that are having their voices pushed out of most discussions. Everyone on earth understands why blockbusters are successful, even all of those supposed 'movie snobs' out there. But how many fans of big movies make any attempt to get what the value of a tiny little art house film is? The response to them, all too often, seems to be 'boring' or 'pretentious'. I've sat next to some of these people in a theater when things weren't going to their liking, and they can be painfully disruptive, as if they are angry anyone else might be enjoying something that is completely alien to them.

It's just baffling to me when those who basically have nearly every theatre on earth playing movies they probably want to see, think of themselves as the ostracized group. While those who spend their time championing films that no one is talking about, and who the vast majority of people will dismiss as 'boring, pretentious rubbish' are somehow the cultural bullies. Now this doesn't excuse those pathetic jackasses who try to demean those who like Marvel films, or anything similar to them. Those people are monumental idiots. But let's not pretend the entire universe isn't tilted in favour the blockbuster experience.

Absolutely spot on.

I tried replying but deleted my comment, you put it in words that I couldn't find.

Some time ago....... I waited 3 years to see a film that had actually been released. I was just not able to see it anywhere, until it finally was released on Blu Ray. Some people literally have no clue how catered for, how entitled, and how lucky they are to have the films they want on a plate infront of them.

While it's true that fans of blockbusters can't think of themselves as not catered to, they obviously can think of themselves as condescended to. These things are similar but not identical. There's nothing inherently dissonant in having blockbusters playing everywhere but still thinking blockbusters are looked down upon. Because they plainly are, at least sometimes.

And while I'm sure some get all prickly merely when, as it was put above, "smaller films start to be discussed," I don't think that's what we're usually talking about. Sometimes there's just outright condescension. It shows up in every countdown thread, every discussion of box office, and most thread with titles that contain the word "overrated."

That's all well and good, and worth debating; we're here for the opinions, after all (well, we're here for the rep, but we stay for the opinions and the fabulous cash prizes). But I think the initial statement that a lot of cinephiles look down on people who like blockbusters is accurate, and not really contradicted by the fact that they're winning, dramatically, in the marketplace. You can be the majority in the world but the minority in a community. Say, for example, a film lovers' community.

I hope you're not upset about that "pajama god" dig.

Insults can fly pretty liberally from both sides of this particular cultural divide. But I'm not sure those who enjoy popular films are any more condescended to than those who like more 'art school' fare are considered snobs, elitists, phonies, pretentious and people who simply don't know how to have a good time. I've pretty regularly seen the notion that they are being 'fooled' by directors who are just con artists. That, sometimes, they are only pretending to like the movies they say they like (the good old Emperor's New Clothes argument). Sure, these movies forums do give more of a voice to those who like these smaller, weirder movies, but they certainly aren't exclusive to these views. You are simply getting a better representation of both sides of this argument. Blockbuster lovers are still here in full force. Back in the real world though, you're back to being the only person around who has these pretentious or eccentric views that people seem to be deeply distrustful of or confused by.

Even though I assume the question is in jest, I'll answer anyway: nah. And I'm not really mad about people talking down popular fare, either, provided it's done with substance and civility. I'm happy to have the argument.

Yoda, please change title from “Administrator” to “Pajama God”.
Thanks.

Yep, can't argue that. Only thing I might argue (not that you'd even necessarily disagree) is that the insults are asymmetric, certainly in kind, and maybe inherently in severity. I tend to think being condescended to is harsher than anything someone can throw in the other direction, but I'm definitely willing to believe one's "preference" on how to be insulted is idiosyncratic, too.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to take a larger position that one side is better or purer or anything-er. I just don't think having the multitude of multiplexes catering to them (us?) is a comfort in a discussion about taste. In a place like this, at least. And, uh, now that I think about it, in this particular time period, too.

As much as I'd love to argue, I've been working from home a lot these days and...yeah.

*wait for the official title to change*

And hey, no judgement here. As long as you change them frequently enough.

Speaking a a fairly regular Joe who stumbles across this site in 2003...

Far from feeling looked down upon or condescended to, I have, for the most part, felt more enriched and downright lucky to have fallen in with a group of people that are more widely versed and knowledgeable about film. I still watch all my run-of-the-mill stuff and blockbusters, but have also absorbed, and continue to absorb and explore, more shall we say refined cinema. For every Back to the Future, Raiders of the Lost Ark, or Infinity War, I now also watch Stalker, Don't Look Now, or Three Colors: Blue. Without this site and its more dedicated, hard core cinema heads, I doubt that would be the case.

Ad for whether or not Marvel movies are cinema, I tend to lean towards yes - but I also think there are many types of "cinema" or, just to chuff Marty off, "content."

__________________

I don't recollect mentioning Netflix as a business that showcases its movies in cinemas.
They make movies for their streaming service which make money because subscribers pay for it whether they watch it or not.
I'm guessing if they stream an MCU film they have to pay for the privilege so it again makes more money.
That is where I mentioned Netflix, as another source of income for blockbuster movies after their cinema runs.

It could have been another poster that claimed that. My apologies.

My feeling of the subject is similar to the food marketplace.

You can have a sublime meal at your local family run restaurant. Fresh ingredients, exquisite experience, fine wine. Maybe that restaurant makes a profit some years. Maybe some years it doesn't. Sometimes the meals can be a bit pricey. But the food is more often than not lovely, hand crafted by a chef, lovingly prepared .

Or you can have a McDonalds. A mass marketed product enjoyed across the world for the everything now consumer. That makes the company $6Billion profit every year.

Sometimes you have a blow out and go for the 2nd option. But if you choose that option every single time, something's got to give.