Are Marvel Movies Cinema?

I mostly agree with the points you’re making, but I can’t help but feel you’re sounding a bit combative. I very much doubt anything Scorsese could makes, least of all The Irishman, could match the box office success of Marvel films, let alone surpass it. That is in no way a reflection of the quality of either. He has acknowledged that himself when he said that people go to see a Marvel film for different reasons: to spend the time kissing, or to hang out with a childhood best friend they don’t really like, because Marvel films offer easy and usually non-contentious topics for conversation.

But in the real world, killing it in the box office pays off at least in the sense that once you’ve done it a few times, you as a director can then do whatever you want and secure easy funding for your next project, which can be as niche and art house as you wish. I’d argue that’s what Nolan did with Tenet, which would never “make it” or get made at all if it had been his first, second, or even third film. It’s just that people like Nolan know how to milk the game and hence can afford to do this at this stage of their careers, whereas someone like Shane Carruth, who never mastered the box office tricks, will never get the budget to make whatever he likes. So in a sense, taking the box office into account serves to benefit the directors above anyone else.

I think there is alot to be said for going into a theater to watch a film. I bet your friends would have had their socks knocked off by Taxi Driver if they saw it in a theater rather than on whatever you got going on in your home. I will get up a miillion times during a movie at home. There is something about sitting in a darkened room that you paid to get into that quiets you and lets the movie do its magic. People nowadays are not quiet and they need something to grab them and throttle there attention. I am old enough and lucky enough to have seen a lot of older films in the theater. We had second run theaters in my neighborhood that is where the movies went before they ended up on TV with a bunch of commercials ruining them. This is before cable. Yes I am a dinosaur. We also had art houses that ran old films and cult films and old foreign films.Back in the day by cracky that was the only way you were going to see a lot of these movies. ( Ah the invention of the VCR and the video store was a cineaste's dream.) Then still, like going to the theater you were mentallly preparing yourself for a treat.. You have the decision to go and the ordeal to get there and all that prepares you and whets your appetite for that moment when the lights go down. You have quieted your mind and prepared and are willing to be taken away. And if the filmmaker takes his time to get you into the mood of his film you are not willing to get up and drag your friends or partner out of the theater because you just parted with some cold hard cash to do this. Never underestimate the power of money to concentrate the mind. Or the quiet of the theater to put you in the mood for a journey to another dimension. Bump! Bump! Ba!

Yes, I don't disagree with any of that. The notion I disagree with is that Scorsese is annoyed at the financial success of these franchises. Scorsese is a multi millionaire film-maker who will go down as one of the greats. Why, in the twilight of his career, would he will go public about financially motivated concerns? He's genuinely concerned about cinema, and the art of it being lost.

That Shane Carruth film that never got made looks brilliant. It's a travesty it didn't get financed. That's the sort of thing Scorsese is worried about. And rightly so. Shane Carruth doesn't want to make box office wonders, as is his right.

Sure, that’s fair enough.


I know and I agree. I love Shane Carruth. But I suppose people who want to adapt, adapt, and those that don’t, do not. I appreciate that’s a very cop-out kind of comment.

I expect you've seen this:



What a film it would have been. Maybe one day it will get made.

Yes, it’s understandably been referred to as ‘the most ambitious film script of all time’. I hope it does get made.

There are two types of success for a movie.
One is the financial one that the producer and the studio need to stay in business and finance more movies, that means a broad appeal and lots of seats on bums at the cinema hence MCU/DC etc.
Two is awards which tend to go to the more sophisticated and gritty offerings from the likes of Scorcese, Bigelow, Howard.
Not many of the financially successful movies win the big awards while the award winners tend to have less financial success.
Most people fall into one of those two camps when it comes to their preferences while some of us are happy in both.
As to which movie is better than another is purely personal taste.
Older isn't necessarily better either, just because someone doesn't see the merits of watching a faded black and white film from the 40s with crackly sound doesn't make them any less a film fan than those that do.

__________________
Has anyone seen my lightsaber?

https://digitaldecor.threadless.com

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

I think 'success' if we're talking about that relevant to film, can be very personal. I know from experience that just getting a film made in the first place can be the very definition of 'success' for some!

Also the notion that a film is only successful if it either makes a profit or wins awards is not accurate.

It is from the producers and the directors.
Some even hold back on release dates to avoid being forgotten or come up against another film for an award.
The latest Bond has been delayed for financial reasons.
For the film industry there is only those two types of success.
On the individual level yes you can add the satisfaction of being entertained as a success but if we are to be honest with ourselves the film industry just wants people to pay to see it in the cinema and/or buy the DVD/Blu Ray or for it to win Cannes Or Toronto etc.

That is simply not true.

Again not true. Not every film fits these categories. Infact, I'd wager that MOST films made in any given year don't fit these categories.

As far as Hollywood goes we are.
It is either money or awards and preferably both if they can achieve it.
Most films go straight to disk or for download these days so yeh, money is the big factor.
Netflix, Prime, Now TV, Sky all make/air programmes and films to make money, the big studios make films for a profit and for broad appeal so they can get more payments from the above named who want popular movies for their streaming services.
Those that make movies for a limited audience do it for the craft not the money but still need to be financed and the financiers expect to make money from their investment.
Why do you think blockbusters tend to be shown at prime time?
Advertising revenues.
poorly received movies tend to end up in the late night slots.
Money is the prime factor for moviemakers.

Why single out a single branch of the film industry?

No, It's not.

What about the little studios? There are more of them than the big studios. You seem to constantly only talk about large scale film-making.

Finally!!!

Not always true.

Again, you're just talking about blockbusters.


Not all of the time. So incorrect.

Says you.
So what is the point of making a movie if there is nothing in it for the finance people or the film maker?
Financiers do it for the money or the tax deduction...Money.
The film maker does it for the accolades...ego.
People in the arts world whether they are actors, photographers, musicians, painters etc do what they do for recognition and money.
They might start out doing it for the love of it but they still crave the adulation, the cheering crowd at a gig, the attendance at an exhibition, the awards like Oscars and Tonys, the critiques praise.
When it starts to make money then it becomes a business and a business only survives if it makes a profit.

Because it's great art. Do you think Tarkovsky thought to himself "Mmm, how can I make this film more exciting so more people go and see it in the cinema"?

This incorrect. Financiers of Holywood films maybe.

Absolutely incorrect. Tel Aki Kaurismaki that.

See above.

So you've already changed your mind. You previously said films were only made for awards and money. Now you've said films are made for the love of film-making. That's good enough for me. Job done here.

Making a short movie for fun or for a school project isn't Cinema.
Mainstream movies and cinema, the likes of the MCU, is about money, this is where the topic was and not minority movies from people unknown by the majority of cinemagoers.

MCU is cinema, it is made for a fun evenings entertainment while you slurp down a drink and scoff popcorn.

The snobbery over movies on here is sad, your Tel Aki whatsisnames' films are not better than an MCU film, different yes, better no.

You are literally the only one in this discussion demeaning types of film and purposely degrading a film-maker by getting his name deliberately wrong. The only snobbery on show here is from you my friend.

From what I can figure out, the film lost about 100 million. This makes it really hard to come back to the studio execs and ask them to finance another one of his epic movies.


I've never seen the Emoji movie, but I'm guessing it probably sucked at everything except the box office.

All I'm doing is trying to look at it empirically. What metric can we use to define the greatness of something? The most obvious is how the market reacts. I could give you my top list of brilliant movies, and we'd probably agree on at least half of it. I could do the same with music if talking with a musician. If I were to talk with my wife, she thinks One Direction is the shiznit! I disagree, but who the hell am I?

Run me through you're accounting here.

How much do 'made for TV movies' effectively 'lose' ? How much were Netflix expecting to recoup in revenue during the film's limited run?

No. Because you're only talking about a certain section of the film industry.

I very much doubt it.

Not sure what you mean here. You're typing on a movie forum about movies. So you can expect some discourse about movies.

Netflix purchased it for 120 million. It made about a million overseas. It cost roughly 250 million to produce.


This goes without saying. I didn't mention the Emoji movie as being the height of cinematic excellence. You brought up the seven samurai, and in the same breath, pointed out that it lost money.

This conversation reminds me of conversations I've had with musicians about modern jazz. Musicians love much of it, but it's been a long time since a jazz band filled Wembley stadium.

I think this is an interesting discussion.

I'd argue that the reaction of the "market" isn't a very good metric for deciding what the best films are. If we're trying to figure out how much a film will likely earn, then sure, the earnings of similar films are relevant, but I agree with ScarletLion that how much a film earns says very little about how good the film is. Take into consideration that, for example, a difference in marketing strategy could have a big impact on the earnings of a film, while not changing the quality of the film.

Personally, I think that to figure out what is best, the most useful "metric", if you could even call it that, is to listen to expert opinions. (how you define experts in an art form is then another problem )

I see it like this: If a doctor was performing surgery and we wanted to find out the quality of this surgery, how would we go about this? Would we ask the general population, of which most probably don't have specific knowledge on this subject, or would it be more accurate to find 10 very experienced doctors, and have them judge the quality of the surgery?

I think It's also important to keep in mind that trying to look for an objective metric doesn't make a lot of sense in itself, since there is not really such a thing as "objectively" better in art.