Did Marvel Kill Cinema?

Get Surfshark VPN at Surfshark.deals/wisecrack and enter promo code WISECRACK for 83% off and 3 extra months for free! Thanks to Surfshark VPN for sponsoring this video.
Why is Martin Scorsese so mad at the MCU?
Iconic director Martin Scorsese has spent the past couple of years distinguishing what he considers "real cinema" from the "theme park movies" of the MCU. But what if this whole distinction doesn't really exist? And what if the key to proving it is... William Shakespeare? Let's find out in this Wisecrack Edition: Martin Scorsese vs. the MCU.
Subscribe to Wisecrack! ► wscrk.com/SbscrbWC
Support us on Patreon! ► wscrk.com/32Q7huu
Check out our Merch Store! ► wisecrack.store/
=== Watch More Episodes! ===
How History Defines the Avengers ► wscrk.com/2S7hnDN
Joker and the Quest for Recognition ►wscrk.com/3wPSPy4
Shutter Island: Deep or Dumb? ► wscrk.com/3wSwBvy
00:00 - Intro
02:06 - Recap
03:49 - "High Art" and "Popular Art"
09:32 - The Avengers vs. The Socrsese-verse
14:23 - What Comes Next - Conclusion
Written and Hosted by Michael Burns
Directed by Michael Luxemburg
Motion Graphics by Riley A
Editing by Mark Potts
Video Title Card by Amanda Murphy
Produced by Evan Yee
Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound
#mcu #scorsese #wisecrack
© 2021 Wisecrack / Omnia Media, Inc. / Enthusiast Gaming

[@QuarterCoyote]

I'm more concerned with art being owned by a few mass media/entertainment conglomerates and independent artists not being heard.

[@gabbar51ngh]

If you are good then studios will treat you Better though. Nolan for example gets to do whatever he wants cause he brings results. Has his own fanbase. Doesn't matter whether Popular IP or story from scratch

[@javierlozanoguiler722]

There is still room for small independent studios since there is evident demand for art type films, there is indeed a niche market that big studios cannot please but other smaller studios can, just like A24 is doing

[@Jaaaa315]

It's literally what he said... I'm more concerned with people like you being the ones voting with their wallets without understanding what they're voting for.

[@jothishprabu8]

@@gabbar51ngh Nolan makes safe pg 13 mass appeal films lol. If he pitches a Script like "Basic Instinct" he'll be rejected.

[@jothishprabu8]

@@javierlozanoguiler722 A24 can only produce moderate Budget films. Something like Blade Runner 2049, The Irishman, The Hateful Eight demand Huge Budget and don't guarantee much profit. These movies take risks unlike mindless and safe mcu movies.

[@megamattx6408]

Dude he's not arguing about high art/low art, Scorsese is arguing that companies arn't letting people make the films they want to make.

[@crazydud3380]

Agreed. However, if you really look at the history of cinema, this is nothing new.

[@laurocoman]

@@crazydud3380 yup. Since those first patents owned by one guy.

[@claynorth964]

shh. that would make wisecrack wrong and look like fools. they cant have that

[@DefenestrateYourself]

@@crazydud3380 Maybe not new, but it needs to be addressed if cinema is to have a future.

[@Seasonal-Shadow_4674]

​@@crazydud3380 I honestly think people aren't asking the right questions because a greater concern for the industry is the selfishly biased and objective views fans, critics, writers, and general audiences have and not making room for something way different than the norm or differentiates from any expectation or archetype, regardless if its coming few corporations controlling everything or a independent artist, this Reddit rant I found is sort of the basis for this comment: www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/nsykrf/i_really_cant_stand_it_when_people_diminish_a/

[@335449286]

I feel all scorses is saying is that it would be a shame to lose movies like the lobster or the irishman or the father (ect) simply because marvel movies or fast and furious or Jurassic park all make allot of money. I didn't see him bashing any ones preference of movie just stating his concerns of how the market is evolving

[@carrierogers874]

I also saw it interpreted as a distribution issue. If your theater has 10 screens and 6 of them are Marvel movies, how will people watch independent/artsy and support those stories? Same monopoly problem as the 1940s antitrust cases. Or check out 99% Invisible's episode on the MegaPlex.

[@oneandonlyJonnySad]

He directed my most favourite film ever. Wolf of Wall Street. But I think it’s ironic he says Marvel isn’t cinema at a time when he’s making a movie for Netflix.

[@jamesmason7979]

The problem is that Scorsese actually made two arguments. The first argument is that films like the Marvel films aren't cinema. He explicitly compared them to them park attractions and questioned their artistic merits. That I don't agree with. The argument about media conglomerates and film franchises dominating box offices and potentially jeopardizing the film industry was an argument that came afterward. That argument I agree with 100%.

[@maddog2314]

Yes I'm only 5 min in and this video overblew what he was saying. Even though he said he was trying to not overblow what Scorsese was saying.

[@FramesPerSecond]

@@oneandonlyJonnySad that’s the thing though, the only way he can get the money to make his film is with Netflix because cinemas and marketing are favouring superhero movies.

[@powerofberzerker9487]

Marty's right. Disney wants to have complete control of the film-game, so smaller auteur films are suffering.

[@brentandrew2419]

Exactly. Let's not lie and pretend it's about differnet forms of "art" that Scorsese just doesn't get. Disney now wants to control what the art of the cinema is so they can have a domination over the marketplace. Hence why we get "70s political thrillers" or whatever horseshit they try to make next week, they want to blot out any actual political thrillers.

[@gateauxq4604]

Disney doesn’t ‘want’ it, they *own* it. Things haven’t been the same as ‘back in his day’ since films started costing $1mil to make a ‘cheap indie film.’

[@SlapstickGenius23]

@@gateauxq4604 about ninety years ago, mainstream films used to cost just a puny one million dollars to make.

[@rikusauske]

Not just that. Movies are being made with profit motive first and are funded by the military to push a specific neoliberal agenda. As a result they can't be interacted with beyond a surface level

[@luzciano]

It's very easy to understand Scorsese's point and I think this debate has a lot to contribute to the evolution of superhero movies. I particularly love Marvel's movies, however, there is one point that he affirms and it's the truest, especially in countries from the third world like Brazil, Marvel films with all the marketing power of Disney have taken screens from local and independent productions, a case that happened here in Brazil where the film Aquarius, a Brazilian production with Sônia Braga, had no rooms for being shown because movie theaters preferred to show Captain Marvel. This is serious because it affects talented filmmakers who lose their opportunities in front of large corporations, but I believe it is the fault of the search for profit above all. From an artistic point of view, it is good that this discussion is done, but from an economic point of view, especially for professionals who are not in Disney's magic bubble, I think that Martin is right and something has to change in this sense because it is an illusion to believe that everyone has the same space. I don't think he's blaming Marvel but using it as an example of how the industry acts and destroys creative sectors to please shareholders and standardize what the public seeks, the same happens in other sectors creatives such as music, graphic arts, fashion, this constant industrialization of human creativity.

[@MrGamelover23]

Wait, are you seeing that there are theaters in Brazil that are only showing one movie at a time?

[@adithyasudheer1561]

So is it marvels fault for the demand? No. Its the theaters owners fault for not showing but not really their fault because the reason for business to exist is profit. So why wouldn't anybody wanna make money

[@baraodascolinas979]

I am not op, but Brazilian. Yes, there are lots of Brazilian cinemas only showing one movie at a time , for 2 reasons : 1) Lots of small and medium cities don’t have enough population for more, remember too that cinema is a luxury good here because the population is poorer than USA. And much more importantly, 2) Disney DEMANDS BY CONTRACT that a cinema must show its movies for 4 WEEKS, or no deal. Since the economic power of them is huge, because everyone watches Disney, the local cinema has to give in, and they also privilege other blockbusters, therefore local movies starve for space. The 2nd comment in here does not appreciate the disproportionate power Disney and other few corporations have in shaping the market to serve their interests. The “demand” for movies does not arise in a vacuum, there is large investments made in propaganda, distribution (like the contract lock-ins in mentioned), and selling, and the one with biggest money almost always wins. Brazilian movies cannot compete with that , with exception of low-brow comedies made by Globo, another large corporation, but at least Brazilian money and talent is used. Anyway, the cinema environment suffers from a macdonaldization process, where more and more movies tell the same story with light variations, and are made by fewer and fewer large foreign corporations. I think the only solution is for each country to make a government intervention like the French Cultural Exception : impose limits to this commercial coercion by foreign players on local cinema, demand a % of cinema screen time for local productions (I think in France it is 40% of music radio and cinema theatres), demand that streaming companies invest a % of their local gains in local production (again I think france has been discussing it), and above all invest in education of the arts, so that people can appreciate the whole world that cinema can offer, all the subversion and questioning of present reality it can provide, and doesn’t just see theme park movies that are fun, but don’t expand our horizons of thought. Just like we don’t consider good everyone just eating hamburgers instead of real food. Source : www1.tecnoblog.net/meiobit/374957/star-wars-disney-acordos-salas-cinemas-65-por-cento-bilheteria-reserva-melhores-salas-multa-de-5-por-cento-em-caso-de-descumprimento-regras/

[@greyfox4838]

@@MrGamelover23 there are more films than just captain marvel of course

[@adithyasudheer1561]

@sunbro of astora well im pretty sure tarantino can book screenings. Once upon a time in Hollywood is this second highest grossing film, and yes i know how Disney films operate. But its not like the weeks they reserve are being wasted. People still watch and rewatch them months after it came out because there is a demand for it. Also it's not like the theaters owners are being oppressed by making more money

[@FleaOnPeanut]

Thanks for managing to point out how people misconstrue Scorsese’s point and then misconstrue Scorsese’s point in 3mins.

[@WL1264]

wisecrack in a nutshell

[@saharsharora3912]

Astounding how quickly he managed to do that lol

[@lsh7098]

"Marvel movies aren't cinema" is a categorical statement. Even if he is not making that argument, he is inviting it.

[@DThron]

If you watch Scorsese's 'Personal Journey Through the Movies' doc, you'll see that he's not talking about high art/low art; most everything he talks about in that is B-pictures/low art - hell, the guy makes gangster pictures, he's not making My Dinner With Andre. He' not arguing for lofty pretentiousness, hes arguing FOR Shakespeare - he's saying that art for the masses used to be truly challenging AS WELL AS hugely entertaining - otherwise he wouldn't be talking about the artistry of T-Men or Duel in the Sun, which are both, at their base level, pervy-fun crowd pleasers with strange, upsetting subtext.

[@hieroprotoganist3440]

This. Wisecrack just made a huge strawman of scorcese. Scorcese never even talked about high/low art. He is saying that movies should be entertaining,challenging,thought provoking etc and he is not saying that mcu movies should not exist either. Wisecrack is just so bad these days. Not everything is about Class struggle. These neo Marxists are everywhere man.

[@iliasberrada5021]

@@hieroprotoganist3440 Exactly what I was saying the entire time I was watching.

[@greyfox4838]

I'm just glad to see people in the comments get it, I miss jared

[@30secondsflat]

@@hieroprotoganist3440 100 per cent. A complete straw man argument.

[@vodkatonyq]

THANK YOU! That's the point. Shakespeare IS entertaining as well as sublimely poetic and profound. Ingmar Bergman films ARE entertaining AND deep. MCU are merely generically entertaining and definitely NOT deep. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this?

[@musicamaxima]

Scorsese is right. The same thing has/is happening in other art mediums, music composition, plastic arts... Using Shakespeare is a bit fallacious, too. The thesis isn’t that the MCU isn’t art because it’s for the masses-that’s a strawman-it’s that the commercial paradigm of monopolised film industries, ie the mega studios/Disney, is squeezing out viable alternatives, like all monopolies do.

[@gabbar51ngh]

Cinema has been commercial since it's nascent stage. It's not fallacious at all to make that comparison. Shakespeare wrote those plays so they sell more tickets. "Monopolised film industries". I don't think you know the meaning of the word you are using at all & no one's forcing you to watch Disney movie. It's not their mistake they know how to appeal to masses.

[@Dave_of_Mordor]

@@gabbar51ngh by commerical you mean selling tickets?

[@theboofin]

@@gabbar51ngh You just don't get it...

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@froggystyleentertainment3434 "That means no one gets to make movies that are kind of similar to theirs." Not true at all. The Boys is literally filled with character satirizing and parodying DC and Marvel characters. Zack Synder had a script for a Star Wars movie but now developing it as an independent movie franchise for Netflix called "Rebel Moon" Both Marvel and DC have been copying each other, with numerous Superman rip offs actually part of marvel universe. No one's stopping you to make original stories. Plus there's tonnes of leftover public domain characters which no one uses so what's the guarantee falling into public domain is good for these characters? Like Green llama is public domain. How many movies are we getting of this character? Fighting Yank is also public domain. He didn't get any movie like captain America. You wanna know why? Because companies like to develop their own IPs. A character falling into public domain doesn't mean he would be treated well. Apart from Dracula and Sherlock Holmes how many public domain characters are still getting movies or tv Series? It's completely legal to rip off of old characters and tweaking them enough to be sold off as different. Tarantino literally made movies this way.

[@greyfox4838]

this video misses the point kinda, he even said "we're not arguing it's high art, but that it's not trash, and can be entertaining at least" which is exactly why scorsese compared it with a theme park, he never called it trash, that's what people are assuming

[@salvadorHombre]

I agree with all that Scorsese said about the MCU except for his statement that "it's a new artform" and that "it's not cinema". Mate you can't gatekeep what "cinema" means based on your arbitrary definition of it that you based on the films of the 60s-80s. The main issue that Scorsese brought up gets missed in all this debate though. And that is the fact that powerful studios like Disney push MCU and other blockbuster films on all theatres. And these screens are physically being occupied by the MCU while talented creators can barely get a few theatres to play their works.

[@jothishprabu8]

Scorsese demands more than shallow entertainment from these superhero flicks. That's the point.

[@salvadorHombre]

@@jothishprabu8 you've completely misunderstood Scorsese. He's not demanding anything from superhero flicks. He's just asking that non-blockbuster films don't get pushed out of theatres due to Blockbusters.

[@ZeroX7649]

@@salvadorHombre Well that's a big problem for Scorsese then because high art cinema has been slowly overtaken by directors and executives who hate the audiences and think the audience should have the same moral framework they do because they're morally superior. Which is great, because the directors who love their craft and respect their audiences will thrive while those people seethe.

[@luiousy7329]

@@jothishprabu8 And yet the best remembered literatures are those that appeal the masses while hiding a deeper meaning behind.

[@TheSpaniardX]

I think Wisecrack needs to revisit this one. Marty's point isn't that movies need to be some form of protected "high art" but that movies have been commodified. More and more movies these days, like those from the MCU and Fast and the Furious, feel more and more like products instead of cinema.

[@sebastianmunozrubilar7184]

Agree, feels more like in defense of disney

[@pablofuentes6404]

But under that argument you keep the differences between good and bad cinema, and yes not all of the blockbuster films are great but why keep this ancient gatekeeping in art? That's just dumb He's got a point but I think it's more a about the economic model this movies are being made that the actual cinematic work. Therefore, the common ground is that they all are cinema, and all them have something we can connect to

[@Seasonal-Shadow_4674]

@@pablofuentes6404 people don't ask the right questions and objectify and generalize everything based on their generalized view points?

[@Seasonal-Shadow_4674]

Whats wrong with having both?

[@mrb56789]

How are you going to compare the MCU to the Fast & Furious franchise lol

[@Morphed626]

I respectfully think you've missed the point of Scorsese's argument here wisecrack (though it was good seeing the arguments for high and low art contrasted). I don't think he's comparing high and low art, but calling for a balancing of the arts where one doesn't edge out the other. At the moment films like the MCU (and not just the MCU) edge out films different to it. I think he believes the masses are missing out on profound experiences that cinema can deliver. At the same time film is a business and provides what we pay for. Whats gained and whats lost as a result is a matter for further debate, as this debate overall is complex.

[@benjaminfletcher6632]

Agreed. The argument was that we have moved so far in one direction that anything that doesn't fit into the "theme park" mold will not get made or seen. I was also add another layer to his argument that they are just re-releasing better older movies in the theme park style to make their IPs more profitable. To survive in this new marketplace, I suppose every artist can just throw some pizzazz on their film so it meets the mold. People today wouldn't watch Taxi Driver or the King of Comedy but they love the hell out of Joker.

[@javierlozanoguiler722]

Scorsese did explicitly state this so your point is valid, nevertheless it is implicit the criticism of high art versus art for the masses so wisecracks point is also valid

[@kdscool1536]

​@@benjaminfletcher6632 people back then wouldn't watch King of Comedy either. The audience haven't changed, it's just quality of films and number of talents in the industry decreased significantly since then, especially in big budget films. What was considered an average film back then now looks like a masterpiece compared to what is considered an average film today. To make a counter argument, Marriage Story is very much "re-release" of Kramer vs Kramer, You Were Never Really Here is "re-release" of Taxi Driver. Both are "independent art films", not theme park big IP property, so it's not really IP or theme park thing, that's how most films are made in general, art is not made out of vacuum.

[@joshiperlbach1580]

I would also add, that I dont really think Scorsese was making a point about high brow vs. low brow Art really. His Films all play jump rope with definitions such as these. I think the real problem with Marvel Films (allthough not all) is that they tend to use save and and overused plots because they dont want to risk anything with those massive budgets. Thats why I think its false to say that they dont convey emotion, I just feel like sometimes they lean on cheap tactics to do so. I always felt the themepark argument was very fitting, because a rollercoster for example also "conveys emotion" in a way, but its not very clever or interesing.

[@BJ-zd2or]

Martin is saying cooperate cinema is taking over and art say like taxi driver or quite recent joker that didnt aline with safe coperate expectations are fading or dwindle among the masses of social media itself. That really came out with subverstions and discussions that were talked about years later. Lost In Translation a subtle yet genuine cinema experience that may not be for the masses yet years later would be talked about or something that seem to stem from current generation that finds something with that. There are films that use practical effects to feel the experience not just dialogue or themes, But people and interaction or even not so authority or protagonist but observing. Kes a 1970s film about a kid in the north of england looking after a bird while struggle with school and home life. It gives an observation, it's not for majority but it's an attempt or experimental. Dual was Steven Spielberg first film and you got everything in its expense and atmosphere. It was very simple yet effective. I might be off track what I'm getting at but the art form in cinema is mostly CGI, mostly posturing in some sorts. Or you get this other that has this dark knight theme or street view and there isnt something that plays around with the camera.

[@jacobdriscoll8276]

I think you asked the less interesting question here. See Scorsese's point about "fighting for screens." Something I felt was a little missing from the high art / low art framing was that mass appeal is what drives money and so what drives what studios are looking to make and fund. Marty's worried that eventually comic book movies will be most of what *corporations* are willing to buy and sell and show, relegating the kinds of movies he wants to make / wants others to make to small screens. The Irishman is on Netflix, not in movie theaters, right? In a way, it doesn't matter how good The Winter Soldier is as "cinema." The fact that you have to have Captain America in your '70's thriller to get it into theaters instead of relegated to Amazon Prime is, to me, a more interesting and nuanced issue.

[@MrGamelover23]

Wasn't it scorsese's idea to put the movie on Netflix instead of theaters? I mean, what was stopping him from putting it in theaters? He's Martin Freaking Scorsese, I doubt he had to answer to anyone to get into theaters if you wanted to. And besides, comic book movies aren't going to be a lasting fad, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[@Hiryu_]

@@MrGamelover23 if you can believe it, he had trouble getting the film funded, that’s why it’s at Netflix, a little ironic how he’s “talked down” on streaming services but he had to go to one to get a passion project of his made

[@jaggerpirtle3766]

I don’t think that’s a new concept at all. If I wanted to see a blockbuster theme park movie from the major studios I’d go to AMC or other chain theatres. If I wanted to see more artistic and technical movies I’d go the belcourt, or other local theatre.

[@Hritik9000]

Look I am not defending Marvel/Disney fan but they are making money and I mean tons of money by doing what? Releasing 3 films a year ,Marvel released 3 films in 2018, 2 of which became top 10 highest grossing movies. It's not like they release 10 to 12 movies, there is plenty of space for other movies It's just that no one wants to see it.

[@adithyasudheer1561]

@@Hritik9000 ikr people act like marvel releases a movie every week. The real problem is the studios who's trying to BE marvel. With their endless remakes and sequels. Look at the impact the mcu has and how many people have tried to copy it. Dceu the Wizarding world, fast and furious universe, the conjuring universe, universals failed dark universe, the monster verse. Marvel isnt the problem, its the people that are trying to be marvel

[@Raven_Frame]

*Expresses concern over small time and independent creators being denied a place in the public eye.* "Yeah well you're just pretentious."

[@treasey8655]

Literally this video I'm disappointed in wisecrack

[@ooperblownup]

Uhh except that that's not really what Martin Scorsese expressed. Also it seems you didn't even watch the whole video Wisecrack never comes to any conclusions, they leave space for questions and further conversations. They never even came close to calling MS pretentious it just sounds like you got defensive for no reason lol.

[@treasey8655]

@@ooperblownup there's something called subtext

[@ooperblownup]

@@treasey8655 right right. There's also something called oversimplification and ignorance

[@JuanAlejandroRaveloUrbaez]

@@ooperblownup 13:43 He quotes one of his colleagues "Isn't Scorsese just Marvel for Italian-Americans" that's definitely an oversimplification and at the same time evidence of the biased approach in the video. The whole video ends in a false dilemma: Is MS right or just delirious? and the best conclusion is false compromise stating "Marvel movies are fun and good, chill" Chill.

[@houssembenabdallah6599]

What I hate about the last few years of cinema us a lack of originally, in pursuing on financial gains, studios want to take least risk. That's why everything is a reboot or sequel.

[@matheuslascasas134]

Guys, you should consider changing the name of this series to something less...clickbaity. Reducing one’s take into one of these two very broad words seems very counter-intuitive to what philosophy is all about. Or is this just a dumb opinion?

[@caesarvolz6945]

They're all for clickbait. They're here to make money.

[@HP-lc5vw]

Dude u got it completely wrong, he’s not accusing anyone who likes these type of movies of being dumb, he’s just not keen on the idea of all these marvel blockbusters taking over and depriving other type of films from being shown in theaters

[@Pssybart]

I think broadly speaking Martin Scorsese is right. I also think this Wisecrack analysis is kinda missing the point about Scorsese's comments. His point is not so much a discussion about high vs low art. It has more to do with the landscape of cinema changing to the point that projects get greenlit only when the studio's find the movies marketable enough. The Irishman is a 200 million dollar all-star crime drama that should've guaranteed Oscar nominations. And yet, no traditional studio wanted to invest a Marvel sized budget in such a project if there's no way to make Jimmy Hoffa merchandize. Let me just give you an example. I saw the Irishman at a limited cinema screening. There's a point far into the movie in which you as a viewer already know that one character is going to die. What follows is a half-an-hour sequence of people driving cars around and having conversations about fish. There isn't even music playing during this entire sequence! And yet, I was at the edge of my seat during the entire half an hour. Every audience member was just sitting there in dead silence, just waiting for the big moment to happen. Now that's what Hitchcock would call 'suspense'! So can you imagine a Marvel movie doing that? Of course not. Marvel movies are about spectacle, jokes and big fight scenes. Sure, they take risks once in a while and they do sprinkle a little bit of emotion on top of their stories. But trying to entertain their audience the way The Irishman did is something a Marvel director would never be able to do. And the fact that many people fell asleep during The Irishman (my girlfriend included) may have to do with the fact that it's a movie that should be viewed on the big screen. You just don't get the full experience when you're sitting on the couch with a dog nibbling at your shoelaces. Bottom line: Marvel movies are great, they're a new form of big screen serials, like the old Flash Gordon serials. It just would be nice if studio's coould find a better balance between the big franchises and the more original films.

[@deep_fried_analysis]

Remember, people: your attention is a valuable resourse!

[@tylercross8877]

Nurgle brings you many gifts

[@LuisSierra42]

It doesn't matter when you are poor

[@Mardiddo1]

Top comment ❤

[@oopsy444]

@Kevin McCabe nah social Media

[@steveosteveareno2670]

Resource. You're welcome.

[@camcabbas]

Glad I came to the comments and saw people saying what I wanted to say even better than I could have. Sorry guys from Wisecrack, but this aint it: Scorsese isn't talking about high vs low art, he's speaking his mind about the homogenization of the film theaters through a handful of corporations that basically make one kind of movies and entertainment.

[@greyfox4838]

I think you're being a bit unfair on scorsese here, when he was talking about the 70s as a time of great cinema, he's including stuff that are and were mainstream like star wars and 2001 a space odyssey and his own flicks, I don't think he's necessarily saying anything popular is low art by default

[@BostonMBrand]

I think wisecrack had a bit of a fight or flight response in this case, which is honestly kind of disappointing given the usual quality of video we get. Societal disapproval of certain genres of art and fiction for superheroes and blockbuster movies has significantly decreased in the last three decades. Everyone now watches superhero movies, reads some comics and invests themselves in nerd fandoms. Besides a select few who only have their opinions validated in small groups, nobody is condemning comic book movies or space operas because they are “low brow superhero movies” or because they come from comics. And despite Scorsese producing a nuanced argument that isn’t black and white, I think wisecrack kind of just went to the defense of nerds. For all purposes, the reclusive nature of nerd culture is dead and nobody needs to defend it.

[@arkangelarkangel1302]

Its actually pretty hypocritical of Scorsese to attack MCU movies now that you mention it ... yet two of his besties... Lucas and Spielberg created the blockbuster.

[@arkangelarkangel1302]

Its funny you bring up nerds... cuz as one im kind of glad mass media gives a rip about my money and catering 2 what I want.... ala MCU movies. Just guess what you just realized there's alot of us and have billions of dollars to spend. Like sports fans. Or mall people. Or foodies. Point is we have a taste and Hollywood is feeding it.

[@BostonMBrand]

@@arkangelarkangel1302 absolutely. We have the demand, therefore they supply. I’m just saying it’s a far cry from the days when people felt embarrassed or ostracized for entering comic book stores, playing tabletop, or seeing space operas made for kids. Truth be told, you can enjoy any art you want, no matter what anyone says and Hollywood will make whatever we buy. I think it’s a normal cycle. Art will be shunned for being childish or abnormal, but as markets change and consumers age, that art will become mainstream. Comic books and related media weren’t the first and won’t be the last.

[@baraodascolinas979]

​@@arkangelarkangel1302 D. W. Griffith created the blockbuster film 100 years ago, lucas and spielbrg made the current blockbuster model only.

[@DracoMagnius]

I've always said that if Shakespeare was alive today he'd be a shitposting memelord.

[@Max25670]

You could make that argument about anyone, everyone is a reflection of their time period.

[@DracoMagnius]

@@Max25670 I say Shakespeare specifically would be a shitposting memelord because he loved puns and was making entertainment for the masses and if you gave him the internet he'd be on Twitter posting nothing but memes all day long or at least that's what I believe.

[@BostonMBrand]

Same with Amadeus.

[@Sageboy13]

@Caspicon Studio you’re an idiot

[@BostonMBrand]

Even though I think the video may have missed the point of Scorsese’s argument, I kind of wonder what modern types of art considered “mainstream” or “low brow” will become “high art” to a pretentious few in the future? Like in a few hundred years?

[@Jass.Marttz]

One of the negative effects of The Dark Knight, so to speak, is that it incentivizes upcoming action productions to take themselves too seriously, when most of the time they are not.

[@sreenivaskamath4243]

That's because it inadvertently created a formula, which does not suit yo all kinds of action films.

[@MrX-pc5xn]

"Wisecrack missed the point of Scorsese's argument like Timo Werner missing the net. Mart isn't distinguishing high vs low art. He is fighting for low art that isn't getting exposure. In his documentary 'Personal Journey with American Cinema', he is talking about B-Movies, low art cinema like Duel in the Sun, not some lofty pretentious borefest My Dinner with Andre. His argument is on the distribution side not the conception side. Hus lament is how "low art" has ceased to become challenging as well as entertaining. But give it to a bunch of philosophy majors and see them twist the argument by cramming in their degree thesis to discredit the initial argument l. Looks quite lofty and pretentious to me." - VM

[@troyohenry3165]

Came here to say this

[@santiagobauza4257]

A Timo Werner reference at a Wisecrack comment section. I didn't expect this crossover but I like it. I also wholeheartedly agree with your point.

[@FramesPerSecond]

Scorsese’s point was more about distribution and getting films shown in cinemas and less about high art and low art. You need to re-evaluate your video and make another one.

[@DuchessChau]

You should go read Scorsese’s op-Ed again and then re-evaluate your comment. Scorsese made two fundamental points. the distribution part, though valid, was only half the argument.

[@user-hk5fo1nm9h]

Not just that but they totally forgot everything they said in their Alan Moore and The Boys videos about the empty bullshit of superhero movies.

[@kdscool1536]

He probably meant both, he didn't complain just about distribution and financing.

[@azadx44]

Scorsese said the cinema is dead, 2 months later, all theatres closed for more than 2 years (and still counting) coincidence? I think not...

[@thebitternubbin]

Scorcese personally and singlehandedly killed cinema! we heard it here folks! -puts on tinfoil hat-

[@jaydenclancy1139]

Wait, so the virus originated from him?

[@thebitternubbin]

@@jaydenclancy1139 this is all a Scorcese movie take on what a global pandemic would look like

[@jothishprabu8]

His next movie is going to be the resurrection

[@darragh47]

When a multiplex is showing fast and furious every 20 minutes there's room for little else

[@user-hk5fo1nm9h]

That has more soul than the MCU.

[@darragh47]

@@user-hk5fo1nm9h whether it's f&f, mcu or harry potter is irrelevant. Part of what Scorsese is saying is that massive budget movies are squeezing out other types of films in cinemas

[@nubius]

@@darragh47 Isn't that why we have (had) art house film theatres? There are appropriate venues for appropriate types of medium. The "theme park" films do take up more space, and smaller more nuanced films are better experienced in smaller venues. At leas that has been my take on it. Also you can just watch either at home on your own terms.

[@darragh47]

@@nubius What's inappropriate about showing lower budget movies at a multiplex? Seperate buildings are just going to push these films further away from audiences. These “arthouse” cinemas depend on loyal support which is dwindling due to streaming services. They will always be under pressure to show films more likely to rake in cash. Sure, the market may be pushing in that direction but Scorsese is talking as a creator, not an economist. Directors want their films to be seen in the cinema not on tv screens. Scorsese knows his films will be fine, his name is big enough to sell any film. It's the direction the industry is taking is what he's worried about. Also, he's not going to call out Disney by name.

[@nubius]

@@darragh47 yeah...even he can't call out the mouse~ I wish that "art house" films were more main stream, but it's not a question of weather they are inappropriate for a multi-plex or not. Consider what we see in reality (or the pre-covid reality.) The films I really wanted to see were mostly imports which were shown in smaller more intimate experiences VS the "theme park" analogy as Mr. Scorsese points at. This divide between what is Hi-art vs Lo-art has been observed for a long time (as the video covers.) What I'm considering is the appropriateness of our own expectations as consumers or appreciates of the arts in all of their forms. To be blunt, I'll put it this way. I wouldn't expect to buy a ribeye at a 7/11. There's a time and a place for all things. It's not a zero sum game. You go where it's most appropriate and until things change at a higher level, you go with what works. Weather that means going to drive-ins, multiplexes or an arthouse to get your film fix. I'm just glad we have more options at home now too.

[@jogingeorge4885]

It's basically a matter of one type of movies pushing the other out of the big screen. His point wasn't to disparage superhero movies, he was just saying apples aren't oranges.

[@bobpope3656]

apples and oranges are really similar that is a stupid saying. the actual saying is that is like comparing apples and oysters which are actually different

[@jeremycurle6880]

exactly. that's the point that this video missed.

[@adnandlala]

@@bobpope3656 however similar you claim they may be, apples are still not oranges. The quote holds up

[@KevinWidesouls]

Then he should be blaming streaming services for causing that, not disparaging the merit of the films themselves. Don’t be mad at Kevin Feige for producing a bunch of movies that people would prefer to watch on the big screen as opposed to the comfort of their own living room. Blame streaming services for making it possible to watch anything at anytime at home. Yet, Scorsese clearly doesn’t want to piss of streaming services considering, ya know, Netflix gave him a remarkable budget and complete artistic freedom to make The Irishman. He’s directing his criticism at the wrong party. And if he actually had the balls to criticize streaming services, I’d still think he’d be wrong….streaming services have been a godsend to filmgoers who are trying to access as many films as possible, as well as to the up-and-coming filmmakers that Scorsese is supposedly trying to defend.

[@bobpope3656]

@@adnandlala by that interpretation nothing is the same thing and the word same loses all meaning.

[@assassinodecereais]

1) Scorsese doesn't separate "high art" from "popular art". He separates art from "content", as seen in the excerpt you transcribed, where he admits that cinema and worldwide audiovisual entertainment CAN overlap, but more often than not don't. He's talked multiple times about how this films follow the same exact money making structure every single time, and therefore removes every sort of surprise or different expectation from it, because you know exactly what's going to happen. From that, may I add, what I think Marvel does is: they always hire a talented director, and they make the director use their creative input to represent a theme (like those you mentioned on The Winter Soldier and Guardians Of The Galaxy), but always restricted by the same formulaic structured story and washed down visuals. And that's the problem. 2) Another big problem is the lack of opportunity these new directors get outside of these big blockbusters. The problem is not that Marvel movies get made, but that virtually ONLY Marvel movies get made (talking about big studios, of course). There's no budget for anything that's remotely different or based on a new thing. Everything is superheroes and big monsters. If a director makes an outstanding independent first feature, their reward is not the (natural) second film with creative freedom and more money, is a gun-for-hire run-of-the-mill blockbuster film just to be allowed creative control on their next independent film. And if that's not something that the director isn't interested in, then there's no big break. That director's only chance is to continue making independent films forever. 3) The biggest problem that Scorsese talks about, however, is not even the process of the movies themselves, is the way one of the "art formats" is getting a completely disproportionate monetary backing with absolute disregard for the other. This is the biggie. The one he talks about in evey essay, every interview. This is why I think this video got wrong what Scorsese was talking about. Even going with your "high vs popular" art argument (which is not the case), the only thing he is claiming for is a better chance for those who don't mind the "popular art", but still want their "high art" to be seen, and are being denied that chance because every single chunk of big money is going to the same type of "popular art", year after year after year. Since there’s absolutely no support for this types of films, they only premiere (sometimes for a limited time) in the big cities, and people don’t even get to see them in small towns, whereas Marvel films get mutilple screens for months on end. And THAT is what creates the giant hole between those who defend "high art" and those who defend "popular art" (Scorsese wouldn't even be talking about Marvel if he saw the Greta Gerdwig's and Paul Thomas Anderson's getting the opportunities that they deserve instead of never getting their shot because they just don't want to do a Marvel or a Star Wars movie), much more than whatever "gatekeeping" people wrongfully took from Scorsese's essays. What you talked about isn't wrong, and the high vs popular art discussion and historical context will always be fun to talk about, but I don't think it remotely applies to this situation, because that's not really what Scorsese was talking about in any of his essays. He’s not pitchforking to boycott Marvel films, he’s asking for more equally distributed opportunities. He's saying: keep making your Marvel movies (even though I'm probably not going to see them), but maintain a good ratio in cinema screens, so that people everywhere can enjoy whatever they want to enjoy on the big screen. Give us Marvel, but give us "cinema" as well (which is really happening as it is getting harder and harder to find screenings of non-blockbuster films in most small towns).

[@GenerationNextNextNext]

Part of the reason cinema sucks is because of us. Companies aren't greenlighting other movies because they don't see the profit. Why would they greenlight those movies if no one is seeing them? Another thing that is often missing in these discussions is CONSUMER responsibility. It's easy to blame corporations. But how are we contributing to the cycle and the monopolizing of the bigger movie companies?

[@perrodetokio]

@@GenerationNextNextNext YEs. We vote with our money.

[@marc-andretrudeau4412]

Scorsese is comming from a rare point in cinema. Film maker had the most freedom they had in quite a while with the end of the Hays Code . People were making all sort of weird and disturbing movies, some that would rival the new south-east asian horor movies today. That was before the commercial succes of Starwars. Before Hollywood realise how much money a franchise can make. How much it is safer to just do an other Rocky then to give the chance to someone to make a new movie. Now, I love some of Marvel films and I hate some old movies, but my point is that art isnt supose to be guided by how much money it will make. Yes some amazing films where made during the Hays Code era and some amazing film are now made by our Disney overlord, but what about movies that arent or werent made because of the code or because they would be a financial risk and Rocky 5 would not.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

Which is funny as Rocky WAS basically an independent movie about a more philosophical story from the life of a run down wannabe that still made it... it may not be quite as far up the forehead as MS' "high brow", but it was definitely not starting out as sensationalistic pugilist action (alone).

[@GenerationNextNextNext]

If you want to be a starving artist, then it shouldn't be guided by the money, but if you want companies to greenlight you, the money has to factor in because of all the people you have to pay who will potentially be working on the project. While I do believe companies should not just greenlight theme park movies, we as consumers have to take responsibility as well. We have to pay to watch the artsy movies that don't seem like a "theme park". Otherwise, companies will make what we pay to see. The problem is the general masses only watch things from trusted brands not new material.

[@HombreDeCalifornia]

Funny enogh, this whole video misses the point of what Marty said. He didn't aim at that. You actually did NOT show me the meaning (or whatever fits here).

[@manuelfernandezgarcia978]

I thought it was titled "Is Cinema Dad?". Yeah, I can relate

[@4c3fr3h1y]

The core conundrum of jim carreys character in the cable guy.

[@SirCorn]

James Rolfe is my horror cinema dad.

[@Ortex313]

That sounds like a hat Michael would wear

[@TheTricky419]

Maybe Dad was all the movies we watched along the way

[@belakoriath3659]

No its "Birthday Dad"

[@DVX_BELLORVM]

I think that you're missing the mark by making this about high versus low art. The cinema of the '70s included both the "high" art of auteur-driven films and the "low" art of the grindhouse. Scorcese's issue is less with films that appeal to popular audiences than it is with the branded, big-budget, homogenized corporate cinema that drives out smaller and more personal films from the theatres.

[@iliasberrada5021]

Exactly my thought, most of the video was a straw man argument.

[@LuisSierra42]

I think this is exactly what the video is about, the examples he brings up are about how these "branded, big-budget, homogenized corporate" moves are becoming more about the emotional and psychological aspects of the characters, citing the winter soldier and the eternals

[@allan7236]

Acting like it's a novelty, Big budget blockbusters always did that, and god forbid Marvel at least gives some space for directors créativité, look Thor 3 or GoG.

[@DVX_BELLORVM]

@@LuisSierra42 While that's true to an extent, Marvel movies still operate within a cinematic universe and use a defined cast of characters that impose hard limits on how creative directors can really be. And although I enjoyed Winter Soldier, it's not exactly Chinatown.

[@johnromero6315]

I can understand his point, but I don't agree with the implications. Scorcese wants to see more smaller films in cinemas because he thinks we're missing out as a society by having blockbusters dominate the industry. The reality is that the only films that "should" be in cinemas are whichever ones sell the most tickets, regardless of whatever artistic value you think they do or don't have.

[@QBG]

The real problem being missed here is how capitalism is locking more and more creators out of making films at all, regardless of whether they're "high art" or "for the masses". It doesn't matter whether the MCU is artistically brilliant or aggressively mediocre-its success has still influenced what viewers will spend money on so much that even big-budget studios have trouble breaking even with "high art" films.

[@brassbunnies]

With sleight of hand, you changed the question then answered the changed question.

[@insidioussmile]

Scorsese does have a point. just because a movie has elements of drama, character, or development does not necessarily mean that they can't also be vapid. Also, for every example of cinematic freedom given by Disney, you have another story of a director being replaced at the drop of the hat for not bowing to the mouse's will (Edgar Wright comes to mind). I think the bigger point I would make is that the movies pay lip service to ideas or themes outside of being a romp - and that's fine, romps can be fun, but there has never been a marvel movie that attempted to do anything I or other audiences hadn't seen before on a drama, plot, or emotional level. even when they ape other genres, it's mostly the boiled-down bare essence of that genre that remains. the winter soldier hints at being an espionage movie, but never fully commits to a revelation of any merit. The only reason these stories are praised is that they are part of the MCU, and not on their own qualities. Avengers: Endgame would be ripped apart by critics for its inconsistency in its use of time-travel tropes, bare minimum thought about how that would affect the world of the story, and a lack of creativity or willingness to change the status quo by the end of the movie (one of the characters who "died" was already gone from the previous movie, and Captain America's subplot is just a "passing the torch"). I just think that because it is a marvel movie, it seems that people are unwilling to criticize the flaws of their stories, and I think that might have to do with the way that superheroes as a concept demand a greater suspension of disbelief compared to almost any other set of tropes. Sorry for the rant, I hope that came across as intelligible.

[@psycho_stan199]

I respect your thoughts but I have to disagree on some of the points and arguments you made and if I have to be honest I’m not sure if you’ve actually seen the movies (especially all or at least most of them ) .. first of all , winter soldier is literally the movie that changed captain America from a “ yes-man “ and someone who blindly trusts and follows his superiors and government to someone that said this to iron man in civil war regarding the accords “governments are run by people with agendas and agendas change , we may not be perfect but the safest hands are still our own” .. second, I highly disagree that the only reason these movies are praised is because they’re part of MCU because if that was the case DCEU should’ve been praised a lot more considering the great characters they have (excluding Spider-Man which technically isn’t a marvel property anymore , all the characters in the MCU are B/C list characters at best ... do you really think regular people knew who groot was before MCU and guardians of the galaxy ?? Picking a lot of “not known at all characters “ and turning almost all of them into household names and well known and loved by millions of people is nothing short of genius and quite frankly miraculous) ... third , about endgame not being a good movie , I absolutely agree that endgame on its own is a movie with a lot of plot holes and confusing story but you have to realize that that’s not the reason it’s loved , the reason it’s so popular is that it’s the conclusion of almost 11 years and 22 (I think ) movies , if you watch the KZbin reviewers almost all of them acknowledge this but they also say that this isn’t a movie , it’s more than a movie , it’s an event , it’s essentially a love letter to all the fans who stuck by them for 11 years , almost half of the movie is fan service (the good kind ) and references to the past movies so of course it’s not a good movie on its own , the MCU as a whole is essentially a series but each episode instead of being 40 minutes long , is a movie with a story and a sub plot of its own but it also tells a small part of a much bigger story (the whole story of the MCU , the events that happen in an iron man movie can have direct consequences and play a part in a captain America movie for example ) so considering everything they had to conclude (all the stories and sub plots ) in one movie , the said movie turning out this good is again nothing short of a miracle... forth , about them not being creative and changing how their movies play out , I do realize and agree to a certain point that it’s repetitive but you have to understand that superheroes and superhero stories in it’s core is a symbol of “good always beating evil” , so it can be an inspiration to people to always be good so they always beat evil , so with that in mind , they can never change that because if superheroes and the good people always lost then what message would it send to the audience ? Probably something like “never be good because you’ll most likely lose “ , so when you consider this and see how they actually did it in infinity war , you’d see that they actually did change the cliche but they couldn’t do it for long because at the end of the day good must always win , so the question isn’t “ are they going to win ?” But it’s “how are they going to win ?” .... fifth , about the captain America sub plot , I couldn’t disagree more , captain America’s sub plot (and in extension, iron man’s sub plot) are the stories of one extremely selfish man (iron man) and one extremely selfless man (captain America) who become selfless (iron man , to the point of sacrificing his life to save the world) and becoming selfish after he’s done more than enough for the world (captain America , choosing to live a normal life with the love of his life rather than keep fighting for the world) , so it’s much more than a “passing of the torch “ , the passing of the torch is the result of his character arc .... and finally just to wrap it all up , I ask you to think about the things I said and ask yourself this question “if these movies are just another generic superhero movie then why did THIS specific universe become so big and so popular ? What was special about this universe that made it stand out ?” , we have to ask ourselves this question when it comes to anything that is too big or too popular because almost every time there is a reason ... oh and don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the movies are masterpieces , they’re not , especially the movies themselves and their stories, but I am saying they’re more than just another generic superhero movie , and I am also saying that the way they did it , the way they built this entire universe and managed their movies and told their stories is truly special (I personally think the way they did it was a masterpiece but I wouldn’t disagree if you said it isn’t , but I will disagree if you said it wasn’t good ) ... but in all fairness and so that I don’t look like a blind fan , my biggest problem with these movies is ruining the tension and the flow of the moment and flow of the movie by constantly telling jokes , especially at inappropriate times , I despised it (for example the cheese whiz joke in endgame , I absolutely hated it , it completely ruined the moment)

[@insidioussmile]

@@psycho_stan199 thanks for the reply! I love these kind of conversations because it lets me gain a greater appreciation for how other people view and connect with media. now to address a few things - firstly, yeah it has been a fair while since I have seen a few of the movies, and winter soldier especially, so I was going off the impressions and my memories of it, which may be flawed. I realize that's probably not the most rigorous way to go about critique, but I wanted to use that as an example of what I would call missed opportunity. even though Cap questions his government, and follows through with that in Civil War, its not like that really carries through beyond that point unless its in subtext. I don't think that's a knock against the series - Its primary goal is not to question, but to provide entertainment, and having to deal with that in more than two movies was probably not economical story-wise. I think my biggest point is that while the Marvel series are extremely well made from a production and planning perspective (the way the avengers movies worked out without being a mess is a testament to that) I do think at the end of the day the movies don't really say anything. like you said, its just good vs evil, but its lacking even the barest of any philosophy underpinning it. for example, The Star Wars original trilogy shares a good bit in common with some aspects of the Marvel movies, but it does deal with themes beyond just good and evil. things like the consequences of fate, the willingness to forgive your enemy, to attempt to redeem the lost. like I said, they are not an overtone, but an undertone, one for which I cannot find in marvel movies, making them feel somewhat hollow in comparison. I absolutely know that I am in the minority on this subject, and I do not begrudge anyone for seeing more in the movies than I do, but I just have yet to see anything that the movies do to truly spark interest beyond the romp itself. no character seems deep, no character is more than their top three characteristics. that may in fact be necessary due to the sheer volume of characters in the series, or I may just be a curmudgeon that doesn't like the movies the kids watch these days. in either case, I would like to know from you: what is it that makes you love the series? is it the adventure? the characters? the plot? the stakes? thanks again for the talk!

[@psycho_stan199]

@@insidioussmile EDIT : I’m really sorry, this is a long one but I think it’s worth a read ..... hi , yeah I absolutely agree , we can have a debate and argue about something and still be respectful to each other and each other’s opinions , I really enjoy these sort of conversations ... now about some of the things you said , first about you not having seen the movies in some time , it’s perfectly fine to have thoughts and opinions on movies that you’ve seen a long time ago , I can still make judgments about a movie I haven’t even seen yet , for example I can watch a trailer for a horror movie and say “ I don’t think I like this movie “ and make judgments about it but I can’t make a complete and fair judgment because I haven’t seen the whole thing and don’t know much about it (still doesn’t make opinion about it invalid , it’s just incomplete) , I guess what I’m trying to say is , your opinion is completely valid and reasonable but I’m just saying you MIGHT have a different opinion about it if you see the movies again and preferably see all (or at least most of the important ones ... don’t waste your time on captain marvel lol , trust me , if you want you can find out about the crucial stuff about that movie on KZbin, it’s much more time efficient) ... second about captain America’s disbelief of governments not being brought up more often , I absolutely agree , it wasn’t mentioned almost at all again however I feel like it was justified because the threats that they had to deal with after civil war are much more serious and much bigger than just a nation’s government , if I’m not mistaken , after civil war , captain America appeared mainly in infinity war and endgame and obviously thanos is much more threatening and much bigger than a government but even then in endgame there was a brief conversation between captain America and Secretary General Ross after reuniting with the avengers that went something like this (keep in mind that in the eyes of the world’s governments captain America and his side of allies are still outlaws) : Ross :” you think all is forgiven ?” - Cap : “we’re not looking for forgiveness , and we’re way past of asking for permission , so if you want to stand in our way , we’ll fight you too “ , so it wasn’t like it wasn’t mentioned at all but like you said it was really brief ... third about the MCU not having a deep meaning and making you question a lot of things , I absolutely agree, even I can’t disagree that the MCU isn’t that deep , most of the questions these movies make you ask are either pretty basic stuff or some minor stuff that doesn’t play a big role in the story , just like you said , at the end of the day they’re just movies you watch when you come home from work or school and you just want to relax and have fun for 2 hours , however I feel like they’re just a tiny bit better than the average dumb blockbuster movie for 2 reasons : 1- they actually know and care about they’re characters, sadly unlike DCEU (i think I haven’t said this before but in addition to being a fan of MCU , I’m also a fan of DC , and it really breaks my heart seeing how badly DCEU are managing and making they’re characters because if you ask me , DC’s main characters have A LOT more potential than MCU’s ) (oh and another thing , they might not actually and genuinely care about they’re characters, but I feel like from what they figured out themselves , if they wanna keep making huge amounts of money , they HAVE to care about the characters ) and 2- unlike other generic dumb blockbuster movies which have next to none question in they’re movies , MCU movies from time to time attempt to question their audience and dabbles with it (however small and insignificant they still make an attempt , like for example again in civil war , the question I asked most frequently when rewatching it was “is iron man’s actions at the end of the movie justified ? Like I know winter soldier killed his parents but he wasn’t in control and had no choice, or , is iron man’s rage justified considering how he was lied to or at least not have been told the whole truth ? ) , so I guess maybe one of the main reasons they’re successful is that almost anyone can enjoy them and they don’t require much from they’re audience but they still offer a bit more than the average dumb blockbuster , but you’re right , if you’re the type of person that likes to be challenged mentally from the media that you watch , then unfortunately MCU isn’t for you .... fourth ,about what makes me enjoy the series ,, the stakes if I want to be honest are non existent lol , like I said before the question isn’t “are they going to win ?” But it’s “how are they going to win ?” So the stakes aren’t that high ,, the plot is serviceable , most of them are decent , some are good but that’s not what makes them special to me , what makes them special to me are a couple of things : 1- nostalgia (well kinda , let me explain) I remember the first time I saw iron man 1 when I was 8 ( i think ) and instantly loved it , but for them to actually keep me interested for 10-11 years and actually stick the landing with it’s finale is something truly special and I have a theory on how they did it , with the first couple of movies they made they showed that they’re characters (especially new ones that they introduce) are going to be interesting and well made characters that are fun to watch and will probably receive the love that they deserve from the series so they’re fans weren’t worried and they kept coming back and they weren’t disappointed (for the most part lol) and the fans knew that even some unknown characters like guardians of the galaxy are going to be interesting and worth a watch under the MCU , which brings me to reason number 2 , 2- they’re world building , character building/development and the interactions between each character : each movies world and environment are unique and recognizable and each character is also really unique and interesting and different from each other , to put it simply , it’s one of the MCU’s strongpoints (it might not be revolutionary and a masterpiece , but for a dumb blockbuster was really good) ,,, oh and an honorable mention for MCU’s strongpoints , the casting and the actors they pick for their characters , their casting is really on point and if you ask me for most of the characters it’s kinda hard imagining anyone else playing the character ( for example iron man , captain America , Thor , nick fury , doctor strange , falcon to name a few ) ... so yeah really would love your thoughts on these ... oh and I also really enjoy this conversation ... have a good day.

[@insidioussmile]

@@psycho_stan199 Thanks dude! that was super enjoyable to read! like I said, I just think that the marvel movies aren't for me. I can appreciate all of the things that you said about them being true, at least to someone who is more invested, and I definitely think that marvel has outdone themselves on the production/planning side of things. I love hearing what about what people are inspired by, I think we get waaaay too much negativity on the internet these days when a lot of these things come down to a matter of opinion and personal perspective. I am in my thirties, so I think for many people they see in Marvel what I saw in Star Wars growing up, and I love that movies are still something that people of all age groups can bond over. to finish my thoughts, I agree that not everything needs to be challenging, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the perfect way to just enjoy a relaxing and fun story for a bit. thanks for talking, I hope you have a wonderful day too!

[@benjaminskylerhill8276]

Some of this didn’t age well…Chloe Zhao made Eternals, which had one of the worst screenplays of last year. And Taika Waititi killed the series he had previously resurrected with Thor Love and Thunder

[@santioliva]

whats interesting is that the philosopher with the phd doesnt mention anything about how the play were meant to placate and make people forget about the ponderings of their insignificance and the dread their country makes them go through, and marvel has made that their empire. one that also often reminds us of that and has monetized his phd through sharing his ideas for a small niche group of people, because otherwise he would likely have a hard time monetize his knowledge at all Thats what i think scorsese is talking about, its dumbing people down and placating them, faster, better and more completely then all of the 19th century plays put together. How do you not see that as a problem? its like youre not even bothering using the logic you should have studied for many years to get your phd... so if someone pointed out how bad it is that the world let macdonalds get to big, and that their meteoric rinse has the worst kind of effect on the world, would you say " but at least everyone can have chicken nuggets, stop being a snob". What about the causation that could easily be proven to be a correlation with the rinse in obesity, or the chicken goop the nuggets are made of, in farms that are just true cruelty, or the way they treat their franchise owners. like come on michael.

[@Eric-xf4cj]

Age of Calculon would be a dope ass movie, make Bender the next Avenger!!!

[@javgoblin]

Or Super King, the greatest one on the team!!!

[@nefdsnet]

CLAMPS!

[@arifurr]

You mostly talk about "High art vs Low art", but Scorsese didn't make any implication that marvel movies are inferior.

[@vodkatonyq]

Scorsese is being politically correct.

[@kdscool1536]

But he did. He literally said that. And many of older directors share similar opinion.

[@meemman843]

When john krasinski made a sequal to his "Love letter to his family", i got convinced that it's all about the money

[@ca6koto0]

When was the last time a good popular movie/show/video game franchise wasn't milked to death? Yeah, I don't remember either...

[@hermaeusmora2945]

From what i read it was the studio that was pushing for the sequel and Krasinski originally wasn't going to be involved or write it. Then he had a few ideas and that eventually turned into him writing and directing the sequel. I also assume there is something about wanting to protect what you created/started, why would he let some other writer and director ruin his work? So, i'm just saying, from what i've read it doesn't seem like Krasinski was in it solely for financial reasons.

[@meemman843]

@@hermaeusmora2945 yea,I agree, it's the studios that really piss me off. It's sad to see sequals for amazing movies that were'nt supposed to be followed.

[@kh7688]

Maybe he wasn't finished writing the letter 🤣🤣🤣

[@ForAnAngel]

I totally agree with Scorsese about the Marvel movies. But A Quite Place 2 was actually really good.

[@411marcos]

Like anthony mackie said, nowdays movies are made specifically for China and 16 years old

[@vichuang1480]

Both are true for MCU movies

[@jothishprabu8]

Quite ironic coming from a mcu employee

[@SlapstickGenius23]

MCU movies are for the kids of CCP officials.

[@amandacoelho9524]

alternative video title: how to misinterpret scorcese saying he's dumb without actually analysing what he said.

[@TeamAlphaPanda]

2:57 This really is the key point of the article sourced. Scorsese is making parallels to the fear of monopolies in most industries. The mass production of Disney-Marvel films - and control over the cultural and financial capital required to mass produce films - comes at the expense of smaller, marginalised producers as well as consumers . Even large studios such as Sony or Paramount don't have the capital to control the behaviours of theatre owners in the same way Disney does. If you are a theatre owner, you NEED to show Disney-Marvel films or you will not survive, and Disney-Marvel knows this. Disney controls 40% of all box office revenue. They have a large amount of control around what you, as a consumer, can see at a theatre. Many people in the industry are aware of the fact, for example, that Disney will stop cinemas from showing Fox films. This is not cinema for the people, this is cinema for corporations. As such, they have no reason to pursue cultural risk as they act as an effective monopoly. Ultimately, Scorsese is right: Marvel doesn't need to take cultural risk, because there is no incentive for them to take risk. There is no need to innovate when you control the market.

[@Monster-ks2yx]

i have to agree with Martin.

[@eyosiasabiot7727]

@Caspicon Studio what’s Martin’s point?

[@eyosiasabiot7727]

@Caspicon Studio I mean his point point, like his argument,

[@Gabreya]

I personally don't think that cinema is dead. There are some genuinely talented writers and filmmakers who aren't given the opportunity by Hollywood to make good, unique films due to Hollywood constantly rehashing the same old material due to GREED. Sometimes, taking risks can lead to amazing opportunities.

[@jackxiao9702]

It's not about high vs low. It's not even about emotion, which MCU has. Marty is against theme parks, cookie cutter movies that follow a formula and similar tone.

[@greyfox4838]

he's not even against them, he just thinks they're taking over screen from cinema

[@jalfredprufrock620]

You're aware that at least half of Marty's body of work consists of mafia films that follow a formula and similar tone, right? Granted, he's also good at subverting genre tropes, but then so are Marvel films.

[@myself2noone]

Honestly I think the high vs low art argument is better. So hats off to wisecrack for steelmaning here.

[@greyfox4838]

@@myself2noone you're an elitist snob if you think that

[@AlmostEthical]

Art in general is becoming thematically simpler and technologically more advanced. I used to play in a band that specialised in retro music. One time the bassist suggested playing the songs in chronological order. It was then clear to us that the pop of the 30s has more chords than in the 40s, with multiple chords for each line. The 40s songs which had more chords than the 50s and, by the sixties, there were some songs with only two chords. Things have simplified harmonically even more since then, but the tech behind the music provides more precision and a bigger sound. Marvel is like that - exact and professional, with technology allowing for a bigger spectacle, but it's thematically simple and formulaic. Basically, the human element is being replaced by machines, which are more reliable, easy and cheap, but less complex, lyrical, creative, original and provocative. As always, art reflects life.

[@momo.maru-kun]

Films like Citizen Kane are like fine dine in cuisine, niche market, while MCU is like your typical fast food, comfort food for the masses. Anything that is too much is bad.

[@arkangelarkangel1302]

Yeah Bro... but thats why more people eat at McDonald's and not NOBU... AND just like NOBU the Oscar's look at McDonald's as garbage and Parasite as fine cuisine.... which BTW... a lil trivia for you... you know which movie was the least watched Oscar winning movie .... Parasite. You can call it racism sure... but it was the least watched Oscar winning movie.

[@Venoseth]

"moderation in all things, except moderation"?

[@izs6946]

what did you think about wisecracks take? Esp where they proved that what some consider as high art is low art by another person/group of people and whereas where some consider as low art (in this case MCU) could be pretty artistic, creative, and deeply emotional when they want to be.

[@arkangelarkangel1302]

Basically Endgame had just as many tears as academy award winner On Golden Pond. And sure you can make an argument that Katherine Hepburn and Henry Fonda poured their long career souls into that final movie for them both... but so did went to Pelican Bay... and thats a prison BTW not pelican cove... Robert Downey Jr... and the MCU brought back his career from no where.

[@harshvardhanparmar2000]

@@izs6946 I like the points that wisecrack makes, but Scorsese isnt saying that one is bad and one is good, he is saying that when franchises get more and more popular, they rob indie films of their theatre halls and if people dont watch indie movies, the entire genre will collapse. The whole high art vs pop art is complete bullshit. You can enjoy both a filet mignon and mac and cheese. That doesnt mean one is better. Both should be eaten in moderation. What we need to understand is that indie films deserve our money more than franchises, because indie films have a lot more risk involved and although franchise films have a lot of passionate people behind them, they have been made by studios purely to make money.

[@IlSH2]

1- Martin didn't label marvel movies as "trash", he said theme parks in the sense that you go, sit in a theater for two hours, have a blast with explotion and punches, and then you go out and forget about it. But you don't go to expect A space Oddysey, Solaris or some french film that tries to brake conventions. 2- Marvel being "thought provoking"? yeah, as much as doing a mention in "you don't respect me because i'm black" in the falcon and the winter soldier. Just plain, on the surface with no development of a theme. That much deep you can go in marvel movies. 3- Lowering Scorsese movies to marvel's level because they have violence??? you even pay attention when you watch a movie? what purpose and condition those scenes serve. Travis kills people and you have direct repercution and contradiction in society. 4- The main criticism from high art film critiques have don`t go through the story being told in the marvel movies. But how they are DIRECTED. You go and watch films from the 70s and they are gorgeous. They have shots that tell stories by themself, through DIRECTING. No exposition, no dumb plot points, no painted by numbers dialogues. Being creative on HOW to tell a story. 5- You went through the history of theater just to at the end water it down to "scorsese does the same, he's bias, i win byebye"? 6- You use the oscars as counter point? an institution whose choise are influenced by what is politicaly correct in these years? your opinions can't be taken seriously 7- Eternals??? the movie didn't premiere yet and you giving praise without knowing how the movie is??? how old are you, 13? Thank god i have adblock, i couldn't be happy with myself if a know i gave money to this lame waste of time channel.

[@adithyasudheer1561]

So movies like jurassic park and indiana jones and back to the future isnt cinema? Those movies are the Genesis of what marvel movies are today. Ffs jurassic park is literally a theme park movie filled with the awe and wonder of one. The problem isnt marvel movies. Its everyone whos trying to be marvel. Look at the endless shit sequels and reboot there have been. The fast and furious franchise, the dceu, conjouring universe, the failed dark universe, monsterverse etc. And all ofmthem hage failed. Those are the problem. Marvel only releases 3 movies a year why do you think the audiences prefers and loves and they marvel and beloved by everyone while every one of its copy cats flop?

[@IlSH2]

@@adithyasudheer1561 The thing with those movies is that they were directed with a vision on how to tell these whimsical fun stories. Spielberg, even with how reiterative his quirks are, is a damn fine director. If i ask you between sam raimi's spiderman and the recent spider man flicks, which one of those has a more solid identity? Most probably you're going to say raimi's, because he has his own way of doings that are imprented in his works. Homecoming isn't a bad movies, but it doesn't have a clear identity. Maybe you couldn't even tell me the name of the director. Because Marvel is more concern on delivering interconected movies rather than giving freedom to someone. That's why they usually hire director's with not much trajectory, because they are susceptible to receive orders on how the movies they want to make should be. That's the point im trying to get across

[@adithyasudheer1561]

@BrosmithShell im not "offended" one of my favorite films of all time is the wolf of wall street. So im not talking with a biased perspective. I just dont agree with what he said, ive stated why

[@adithyasudheer1561]

@@IlSH2 actually I can tell you all directors of Marvel, cause i remember that it. It was directed by jon watts. Also i disagree with thing that marvel movies arent directed with vision. And i can give you several examples. Thor ragnarok is a taika waitit film, through and through, i don't think anybody could deny that. or black panther is a ryan coogler film or the guardians movies are a james gunn film. Even watching the trailer for eternals, it looks like a chloe zhao film, the first frames and the people looking towards the sea instantly made me think of nomadland. That's an example of that directors vision piercing into the audience. It's small one but still enough

[@adithyasudheer1561]

@@IlSH2 also you do realize marvel just tells the directors where the plot has to reach over archingly. Like in ragnarok all waititi was told to was to lead it upto infinity war, and that was the expense of one scene. A post credit scene, it didnt compromise waiti and his vision and talent, infact he himself have stated that 85% of the movie was improvised. Show me one major studio that makes blockbusters that would give that level of freedom to its director. Stating theyre creatively restrictive is kinda false especially when the directors themselves have talked about their experience

[@ruufusdeleon1264]

This whole discussion reminds me of the movie, "Amadeus", which both fictional tells of the personal journey of Mozart and critiques the distinction between "high" art and art "for the masses". "Come on now, be honest! Which one of you wouldn't rather listen to his hairdresser than Hercules? Or Horatius, or Orpheus... people so lofty they sound as if they shit marble!" - Tom Hulce as Mozart kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoDOo4ycadafgq8

[@xBINARYGODx]

You opened by misrepresenting or misinterpreting what he said -so what value does this video have. He didn't say that theme park movies were not movies and that the other kinds were "real" - he said that theme parks were a new thing, and he was nervous about that crowding out movies that are not that. I mean, given how many movies come out that are like that and how even you have pointed out the sort of films we see less of or dont see anymore - why would you misframe what he said?

[@blue.5058]

Cinema as we know it died after films like Star Wars came out- it was then where the “blockbuster” mentality came to be, where EVERY film needed to make enough box office receipts to surpass the GDP of France. Forget releasing well-written and performed films with moderate budgets that turn in respectable numbers on a reliable basis… if the film doesn’t throw in the kitchen sink and doesn’t make 10X its budget, it’s a failure. Too bad making an all-out hit of a film is nothing more than an expensive gamble, the returns diminishing as you go higher with budgets.

[@jothishprabu8]

Cinema died after Ironman came out

[@Segkee]

you ignored Scorcese's best argument: cinematic/visual literacy. The definition of cinema here is reliant on Cinema purely as "happy" entertainment (delivering emotional catharthis - which many mediums do in abundance including Marvel movies). Cinema (high or low) is entertainment but how it entertains is the point (what is it doing to entertain you). Marvel movies are not reliant on visuals for you to access the truth or meaning of what it is trying to convey. Marvel stories can and have been told, understood, and emotionally engaged with outside of the cinema. They are not reliant on Cinema to exist. You can't say that about Goodfellas even though it's based on a real person. Or A MAN ESCAPED. You literally know the ending to this flick in the title. Scorcese's definition of cinema is about HOW the story is told and how it engages and entertains you.

[@guyharris262]

So basically, to Scorsese every movie seems like it was directed by Michael Bay... I would start bitchin too

[@rifroll1117]

I mean MCU films are just better made Michael Bay films

[@julianjpantoja4603]

This is not the point he wanted to make at all. I think he doesn't care about dumb, fun, mindless movies. He's afraid big companies monopolize on this "formula" and overshadow smaller studios from their artistic vision. An example I saw was about how a cinema refused to screen a local movie because all the rooms were occupied by a Captain Marvel movie. You can also make the point that Marvel could release the most boring and uninspired movie and it would still be a success because of the company's influence. I sure know this is true, I watched both Ant-Mans at the theater and already forgot about them

[@kdscool1536]

Early Michael Bay was good. The Rock is a great film.

[@kdscool1536]

@@rifroll1117 more like better written than most late Michael Bay films.

[@archer1949]

Oh for…. Scorsese was mostly targeting the business end and the stranglehold Disney has on distribution.

[@jmclen7]

Wow, this is my favorite KZbin channel and I finally, completely disagree with you guys on something. First of all, the great directors of the 70s mentioned were all very mainstream filmmakers. All household names. Second, and this is personal, I find MCU so utterly boring for exactly the reasons Scorsese states. It’s entertainment for the senses, not the mind imo. I admit this is my personal feeling. Others might get more out of these films and that’s great. They put me to sleep. Now there are some exceptions as you mentioned, but the general MCU thing is just not enjoyable or interesting to me in any way. I’ve gotten far, far more out of my least favorite Scorsese films than any MCU film.

[@garfieldseviltwin97]

I literally fell asleep when watching endgame 😂

[@sayakchoudhury9711]

Before starting the video, my opinion is I am with Marty! Edit: Now that I have watched the video, I have to say you missed a very crucial point that Martin Scorsese was trying to make. Big budget Disney and marvel movies are pushing out other innovative, often indie and sometimes 'risky' big studios movies out of theatre. As had been pointed out already in many comments it is especially bad in countries outside US, like in India where we don't get many good international releases, as theatre space for international cinema is often occupied by blockbusters. It is not about cultural gate keeping, otherwise he would have dragged other genre or sci fi fantasy movies as well it's about mega corporation pushing out other ideas in the single minded goal for profit. But, I do agree Marvel movies off late are taking more risks with intersting directors, probably we will reach a cultural balance in near future where blade runner, pain and glory and Dr. Strange will inhabit a cinematic space harmoniously.

[@agroed]

I agree with Scorsese on the whole, but it pays to realize that our art will cater to whatever is popular at the time with some outliers. Eventually people will get tired of MCU movies like they got tired of westerns, mafia films, cheesy action, so on, and we'll move to something else. The high cinema that he yearns for, are often the movies that are recognized for their greatness in retrospect. Even if it seems like we live in an age of tripe, there are still plenty of good movies that come out, and we'll realize that in time. Even as films become more corporate and focus-grouped there will always be new auteurs who seek to use the medium as a means of communication to tell meaningful stories. In the meantime, watch the old stuff, look for new stuff and, Civil War wasn't so bad.

[@1WonderingApe]

I don't think that'll ever happen because comic book based films aren't a genre they can be about superheros or anything else really

[@maheshmaddyy]

Hey @Wisecrack, here is an apt title for this video "How to misinterpret Scorsese's comments on MCU and how one can milk this issue for years?"

[@MachineHead783]

You know what, Martin Scorsese has never ventilated an opinion like this EVER. Something is very wrong nowdays with cinema that this man, who is btw very shy, felt the need to say such things

[@filmpositive6601]

Thank you for mentioning the emotional resonance of the Guardians films. Guardians 2 is actually my favorite MCU film for this reason. It's the only one in the series to not only entertain, but also resonate with me on a deep personal level, in regards to Quill's complicated parentage and search for a family. I cry every time Yondu says he's proud to call Quill his boy. That hits so hard cause I never had a father figure of my own to tell me that.

[@piedradelaselvados]

God I miss the old wisecrack days

[@danielkjm]

yeah, Jared was the hearth and soul of this channel, now it's souless

[@omen25901]

Glad the Michael brought up GOGv2. It was an emotional scene, and more for me. My Uncle Lalo, had passed away a few days after Christmas of 2016. He was a film buff that got me into some classics, and made me want to make them. He was like a father to me, and when he passed it was such a shock to the family and myself, that we were in a sort of dazed state of disbelief and denial. When Yondu died, and Peter realized he had a father all along made me tear up in the theater. (Michel, I think you were there) When the Ravanger funeral scene came on, and Father and Son by Kat Stevens started to play, I had to do my best to keep my self composed. Mainly because I didn’t want my friends to see, but I also wanted to see the rest of the movie. Not to mention that when the scene ended, and Cheap Trick’s “Surrender” came on, I felt at peace for the first time. In all that time since my Uncle’s (my daddy when my dad wan’t much of one) death, I knew he was a peace, in a better place, finally at rest, etc. I literally “Surrendered” and it was one of those moments that I knew the potential of the MCU for compelling stories. I just think it’s funny and ironic that my Uncle didn’t really like Marvel, and only went with us to get out of the house. He was a fan or Scorsese, and many other greats. I think he would have agreed with what he said, bu at the same time, knew it was just a cycle when it comes to art of the people and “high” art. Look at the Western flicks that were all over Hollywood, and Italian Cinema. It’s only a matter of time before we say that what ever is the next big thing in Cinema years down the road is not “real”. It’s just that studios today are not willing to take risks, and only go as far as something that can make enough money to get back what they put in, and stuff that isn’t as entertaining and just cheap to make. That’s my take away at least. Sorry for the long comment. But keep it up Wisecrack!

[@ididntmeantoshootthatvietn5012]

Marvel didn't kill cinema, they killed themself

[@lidular]

I get that there should probably be more room for the small "high art" movies.

[@rifroll1117]

See the problem is that most superhero/action franchises are like junk food: sure you might want it sometimes over fine dining but when all that the restaurants wanna offer is junk food, you start getting sick of it

[@jeremycurle6880]

exactly.

[@rifroll1117]

@@izs6946 just because it’s junk food, doesn’t mean it has no taste. There’s a reason we enjoy it

[@sebastiangonzales46]

Plus not every movie has to be a serious masterpiece any movie can be good and entertaining in their own way it just depends on the audience

[@garuna5688]

There's a reason junk food is so popular and there's a reason why most people would order a pizza rather than spend several times more at a bougie fine dining restaurant. I'd say movies like Transformers are the worst kind of junk food while MCU for the most part is some of the best quality junk food. Nonetheless i think it's pathetic for a fine dining chef to gatekeep what counts as real food while not seeming bitter.

[@attackonhumby]

WHAT IS THIS ARGUMENT LMAO, comic book stories have been around for decades and the same universes have been rebooted countless times in the comics. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE MCU WOULD BURN OUT COMIC BOOK FANS... like just think it out before you type it...

[@milesfolley6840]

Shakespeare was about both. The high and the low. But here is what he said about Actors portraying a character in front of the audience; “Now this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskilful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others. “ So heck yeah he had super nasty jokes, but what made Shakespeare great was that he wasn’t pretentious and had no mind of connecting to the groundlings and the royal court equally.

[@errwhattheflip]

I don't think Scorsese is saying that one is bad and the other is good. His main point is that one side is completely dominating the medium to the point where more creative art works are becoming increasingly rare and basically nobody goes to see them. In fact, Scorsese even outright claims that he respects what Marvel was able to do, so I don't think he's just being pretentious.

[@mat145395]

Talking about the disneyfication and emotional labour in new movies is so much more than creating a distinction between high and low art.

[@tonyofhousestark1511]

I have always thought that Scorsese's argument could be said about all action film series like Fast&Furious and Mission Impossible to name a few , so it isn't something new that Marvel should be blamed for.

[@cothinker680]

But they are getting lots of money

[@RealistRatRace]

But still I find marvel movies so boring. I rather watch Scorsese’s movie anytime

[@cothinker680]

@@RealistRatRace they are because same formula over and over again.

[@Budymierdas]

@@cothinker680 And Scorsese movies ain't? LMAO

[@cothinker680]

@@Budymierdas he deserves because his movies are original.

[@peterlane1391]

Here's the thing. How else could a movie with Black Panther's themes get funded and find success in Hollywood?

[@1008chaz]

I think the main problem with the huge super hero movies is the good guy bad guy dichotomy they all run on. No matter what you always know the good guy on the cover is going to save the day and it always ruins the movies for me. I like characters with real flaws, relationships, & depth & keep me guessing till the end. It's not non existent in the MCU but it's rare to find a gripping story line that complex and compelling.

[@OnyxLee]

I should have probably brought some peanuts to the rise of the skywalker.

[@tomallen722]

You didn't actually address the main point of Scorsese's essay that it's a competition for screens. The MCU is pushing out other types of films. You've made up an argument Scorsese isn't making. Honestly expected more than this. Edit: word

[@jeremycurle6880]

exactly. disappointed with this potentially interesting video. usually they're better than this.

[@eyosiasabiot7727]

The mcu puts out 3to4 movies a year, how does that take competition

[@tomallen722]

@@eyosiasabiot7727 It's not just the MCU, but he's using it as an example. Cinema's are choosing to screen these types of 'theme park ride films' over cinema because it's finanically safer. What this means is that more interesting films are being squeezed out and the opportunity for audiences to see these films in cinemas is being more and more limited. This in turn makes it harder for these films to be financed. When the greatest living American director has to go to Netflix to get finance for his film, you know things are fucked.

[@eyosiasabiot7727]

@@tomallen722 if they are art, they should survive no matter the competition

[@tomallen722]

@@eyosiasabiot7727 How do you think art is produced and distributed? It's not some transcendental entity. It's made with labour and money and if ones not there then it's not going to be made.

[@dhawkin4]

It's disappointing that they opened on a quote with Marty saying he fears these movies will push artistic ones to the side and then ignored that part of the quote for the entire video. But I was glad they talked about shakespeare the way they did.

[@irmacrack5006]

The fact that interesting young filmmakers like Taika Waititi or Chloe Zhao are now working for the MCU does more or less prove Scorseses point, that there is no room for serious cinema anymore. Also, movies like "Guardians of the Galaxy" may be emotional - sure, but in a very calculated, formulaic way. Its more of a means to an end. With this kind of constructed "human drama" you can generate emotional releases within the audience, but you never really explore the complex psyche of a character. Of course not every movie needs to do that, but if almost every movie theater shows JUST those kind of crowd-pleasing MCU-like movies, than the potential of film as an art form is not used sufficiently. I think its great that Scorsese speaks out on those issues. While many people decry his statements as "snobbery", I think the opposite is true. He doesnt want to "gatekeep" the masses, but wishes for all of us to be able to connect with challenging art again. Because he really believes the art form of cinema can actually change the way we think and feel, instead of just pushing the right buttons again and again for a cheap endorphin rush.

[@carlosavendano8352]

1. Comparing the fact that Shakespeare's plays appealed to the masses to the fact that the MCU appeals to the masses does not show that both share common artistic qualities but only that they both appeal to the masses. 2. This comparison is not correct because you are leaving behind so much detail about the era and evidence just to make your point correct. 3. There are no sufficient evidence provided to change what Martin Scorsese is saying about the MCU films to the high art debate. Furthermore, you are evading what he is saying just to mention a philosophical debate. 4. Something that you are overlooking is the fact that cinema is an art form that appeals to the masses. Early theory about cinema or just to mention recent authors like Walter Benjamin or Arthur Danto claims that cinema is an art form that appeal to the masses. So, if you say that "First Cow" is high art because it does not appeal to a wider audience and that "Spider-Man Far From Home" does then you should explain why both are included into the definition of cinema, that being, an art form that appeal to the masses. 5. Also I think you should explore what is behind concepts like high art or popular art in the way Nietzsche does, because what is behind those concepts are worth to be mentioned. 6. You are overlooking the fact that Martin said that he find some of the things that he considered to be cinematic -according to his definition of cinema- but that Marvel movies lacked some of other qualities. 7. I mean, compare the themes from a 70s political thriller to "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" and you will understand that both are working under different levels. One reference more the world and the political state than the other. 8. But oh my god, when i completely lost and feel disappointed in your argument was when you compare Martin Scorsese's films to Marvel movies. It's no the fact that you said that he has done the same as he criticizes, that is a fallacy (tu quoque). But that to made your point you have to lower a filmmaker's work or not make you opponent's argument stronger so yours show that one is false. 9. A portion of marvel movies that can be considered as great cinema is not enough to justify that the whole MCU is. Also, when you try to argue that because Taika Waititi is a good art house director and he has directed a MCU film you are doing the same thing you do not want, elevating MCU films to high art. 10. You are using "The Eternals" as a prove that MCU films are both high art and popular but "The Eternals have not yet being released. So it is not a strong evidence. 11. It's heartbreaking that you did not investigate or tried to go a little further. MCU films are fine is just that because they are show in every theater in countries like mine, Mexico, you have 10 theater rooms just to show Endgame and one to show a mexican film. It's dangerous because marginalized sights are loose because of it.

[@danielkjm]

Plz Edit your comment and add spaces like this... For people with dyslexia It's hard to read. 1. Comparing the fact that Shakespeare's plays appealed to the masses to the fact that the MCU appeals to the masses does not show that both share common artistic qualities but only that they both appeal to the masses. 2. This comparison is not correct because you are leaving behind so much detail about the era and evidence just to make your point correct. 3. There are no sufficient evidence provided to change what Martin Scorsese is saying about the MCU films to the high art debate. Furthermore, you are evading what he is saying just to mention a philosophical debate. 4. Something that you are overlooking is the fact that cinema is an art form that appeals to the masses. Early theory about cinema or just to mention recent authors like Walter Benjamin or Arthur Danto claims that cinema is an art form that appeal to the masses. So, if you say that "First Cow" is high art because it does not appeal to a wider audience and that "Spider-Man Far From Home" does then you should explain why both are included into the definition of cinema, that being, an art form that appeal to the masses. 5. Also I think you should explore what is behind concepts like high art or popular art in the way Nietzsche does, because what is behind those concepts are worth to be mentioned. 6. You are overlooking the fact that Martin said that he find some of the things that he considered to be cinematic according to his definition of cinema but that Marvel movies lacked some of other qualities. 7. I mean, compare the themes from a 70s political thriller to "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" and you will understand that both are working under different levels. One reference more the world and the political state than the other. 8. But oh my god, when i completely lost and feel disappointed in your argument was when you compare Martin Scorsese's films to Marvel movies. It's no the fact that you said that he has done the same as he criticizes, that is a fallacy (tu quoque). But that to made your point you have to lower a filmmaker's work or not make you opponent's argument stronger so yours show that one is false. 9. A portion of marvel movies that can be considered as great cinema is not enough to justify that the whole MCU is. Also, when you try to argue that because Taika Waititi is a good art house director and he has directed a MCU film you are doing the same thing you do not want, elevating MCU films to high art. 10. You are using "The Eternals" as a prove that MCU films are both high art and popular but "The Eternals have not yet being released. So it is not a strong evidence. 11. It's heartbreaking that you did not investigate or tried to go a little further. MCU films are fine is just that because they are show in every theater in countries like mine, Mexico, you have 10 theater rooms just to show Endgame and one to show a mexican film. It's dangerous because marginalized sights are loose because of it.

[@carlosavendano8352]

@@danielkjm thank u and I am very sorry for that. I write it as fast as I could.

[@danielkjm]

@@carlosavendano8352 No worries, also i agree with 100% with every thing you said.

[@percy8712]

It's not high art vs art for the masses. It's good art vs lazy and terrible art. An example of this would be how both joker and the dark knight were aimed at the general population however are one of the best films in modern cinema. The same could also be said for other films like Shawshank redemption. Its people's appreciation and universal recognition that makes them good. Not the snobbish of some people. People have different tastes however universal recognition of how good a piece of art is what makes a film actually good.

[@rodrigoamem]

By lazy and terrible you mean Scorsese's? I have a hard time following reductive arguments.

[@disuelverocas]

Sure, many MCU directors have a nice and cool filmography, but we musn't forget that the producers have the final word for any subject in any film.

[@markray2769]

“Isn’t Martin Scorsese just Marvel but for Italian Americans?” Well, do you see Hugo and goodfellas posters and t shirts literally everywhere you go?

[@TheFf9Vivi]

Listen Michael if you got a problem with Limp Bizkit in Jacksonville we can take it to the Matthews Bridge and I suggest you let that one marinate.

[@MCGodzilla94]

John Otto will take us there

[@SkateEntretainment]

My problem with marvel movies and most blockbusters is that sometimes they feel designed by executives that are trying to appeal to the widest demographic possible, they aren't really saying anything, just sterilized family friendly content

[@vn9330]

SO TRUEEEE! They are really trying hard to please everyone. But some people just should not be pleased

[@TylerJBrown192]

I swear to god Michael if we don't get that "Philosopher Reacts to Gilmore Girls" vid by the end of the year...

[@vraisairs9201]

I think what separates modern “cinema” from movies is risk. Cinema can be popular. Cinema can be populist. But pop art filmography plays safe bets. It’s corporate. I love a lot of MCU movies, but they are politically, artistically, and culturally safe. And it appeals to pre-established canons Let me know if you think I’m wrong, but that seems to be the difference that Scorsese is talking about

[@Nick_CF]

Also Wisecrack really missed the mark on this video. It was like you didn't even really analyze what Scorsese was saying.

[@vickie_g]

A lot of movies that Scorsese is talking about are still being made... They're being made by streaming services. The medium is evolving, just like it did when we moved for stage plays to movies.

[@dylangold3854]

Love your vids! Always learn something

[@joerig96]

When End Game showing in theatre, 90% theatre slot play End Game 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@Rudykawa]

I would say that much of the criticism was about the massive dominance over theaters that these movies started to have. How it's a new millenium type of phenomenon that 10 out of 10 movies that occupies every single room is a franchise like MCU, or a continuation like also MCU and others, etc. Nowadays Nolan is probably the only filmaker that gets any kind of rooms for original idea movie, while in the past (and not that long ago, like the 90s) that wasnt the case. Before the pandemic I lost count of how many times I went to a movie theater or looked at their website and lost interest in going because the only options were MCU movie 1, MCU movie 2, DC movie 1, DC movie 2, etc. Nothing original IP. Zero.

[@petermj1098]

Endgame stop Parasite from being successful at the box office and win best picture and best director. People acting like film festival movies don’t get heard when I think it’s a lie. It’s really jealous out of the fact superhero movies make a lot of money.

[@Rudykawa]

@@petermj1098 The exception that proves the rules. You probably think that Parasite was the only movie in the decade outside MCU that was worthy to get any rooms in theaters when movies like Portrait of a Lady on Fire was snubbed and many others throughout the years. And the "jelaousy" argument is kinda of a dumb argument. The discussion is not about what is better. Scorsese himself never used comparison or words like better or similars. Is about space. Is about not filling 1000000% of the rooms with the same thing over and over.

[@petermj1098]

@@Rudykawa Considering Endgame is MCU had the biggest box office and Parasite was still highly praised as well I say proves it. If you have a problem with the movies shown in theaters too much then complain to corporate Disney - not the filmmakers in MCU who don’t make that decision.

[@Rudykawa]

@@petermj1098 I would say that the fact you and most people usually can only cite Parasite as an outside MCU movie they praise would be actually the proof of how unbalanced is their showings. And yes, the world has produced outstanding movies outside Parasite in the last decade.

[@petermj1098]

@@Rudykawa If one non superhero film did it than other fans as well. You are the one self doubting they can’t when you should be idealistic that they can.

[@Max25670]

I'm concerned with people viewing Marvel movies as the fundamental of film making in general. I saw thousands of people on twitter refer to widescreen format as "Marvel vision" when WandaVision changed into HD widescreen format after doing it's little retro 1950s tv bit. Or how Tom Hanks said his recent film "News of the World" was like the Mandalorian without lightsabers. So you mean a normal Western? People's entire views of film are solely being based upon hollywood blockbusters.

[@Charmedchosen1]

Honestly it's all about MONEY, Big Executives want movies that sell fast hence The World of Marvel. A lot of movie creators hate Marvel because they can't make the artistic movie they want because they need money to make it and honestly even if their art is wonderful if it doesn't earn money majority of them won't get made.

[@tusharvinocha402]

It was all about the number of screens MCU-Theme-park Cinema owns, and how it spaces out independent cinema & perspective. You missed the whole goddamn point, wisecrack.

[@TheGoddon]

Art is deaaad. Art is deaaaad.

[@amsheel9921]

Bo Burnham's Inside is proof that art is not dead...isn't that ironic?

[@TheGoddon]

@@amsheel9921 I.r.o.n.i.c

[@insertnamehere8121]

This video is a false association used to create a strawman argument. Scorsese said nothing about social classes. He did not associate popular w/the "common people" AT ALL. MANY of the movies he considers quality cinema (including his own) are widely popular.

[@WikiSorcerer]

That's like accusing comic books of killing literature.

[@HankScorpio1982]

This is like any musical artist from the '60s or '70s saying about '80s musicians, "they don't care about music, they just want to make music videos," or an artist from the '80s saying about 90s musicians, "it's not real music, they just want to sell CDs and merch." It's all still definitely music, and definitely still art. Times just change and not everyone from past generations is capable of changing with the times and instead they will say that the new stuff is less than and inferior. Someone who grew up in the 1940s would surely say that Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin "isn't the [music] of human beings trying to convey emotional psychological experiences," simply because those weren't the emotional psychological experiences that they had in the 40s. Society today is much more individualistic and everyone is a unique hero for their own beliefs, so it's not much different for movie studios today to appeal to that the same way that Scorsese used motifs that would appeal to people during his prime.

[@mateustravaglini6103]

You guys completely misses Scorcese's point by dodging speaking about the entanglement of theme parks and pre-production of movies in a deeper level. That "review" avoids thoughtfulness in order to simplify the discussion to achive a pseudo-smart conclusion. Ironically, just what Scorcese thinks about the MCU.

[@timy9197]

But aren’t you also doing that with that last sentence? Scoresese never said anything about that. You’re just saying your own beliefs and pretending that’s what he meant.

[@mateustravaglini6103]

Scorcese thinks MCU is fundamentally and intentionally shallow. I think this wisecrack video is fundamentally and intentionally shallow. Can you see the correlation? Its called interpretation and not pretending.

[@myself2noone]

@@mateustravaglini6103 Well I think your criticism is fundamentally inherently shallow. So I guess we're at an impasse.

[@patrickwhite3912]

This is the same as Spielberg saying video games aren't a medium for story telling because "nobody has cried on level 2" even though Final Fantasy 7 existed when he said it.

[@brentandrew2419]

I think Scorsese has more of a point than you do in trying to say Guardians 2 has any kind of emotional reality. The ending with Yondu's death is so cloying and manufactured to extract tears from the audience, that it becomes manipulated and not "real."

[@goosefxdb]

I think you missed the point of what he was saying. I don't think he was saying that the movies have no value and/or the people behind them didn't create "high art". I think what he said was that the corporation dominates the cinema. Supposedly the billon dollar movies Disney makes us only 10 percent of their yearly profit. So I think he is saying they are commercials for toys, clothes, and Disney's real money theme parks. The movies that make the most money well dominate the cinema. They are also just gi Joe episodes. They might have the best movie makers behind them, but still commercials. I think he is saying this dominates so much there is no room for anything that is not selling merchandise.