Marvel Cinematic Universe

Would make sense. Of course it probably doesn't help that the MCU was also made under the banner of Disney. the closestthing one could get to a MegaCorp and thus a symbol of the stifling of art for profits that corporations are rather infamous for.

Well what do you know, the page image for Executive Meddling is even a comic lampooning Disney owning the MCU. Even the page makes my case for me!

Edited by MorningStar1337 on Oct 20th 2019 at 7:21:52 AM

yeah, basically. I confess that I didn't really see the big deal when I finally watched the OT, but that's probably because of Seinfeld Is Unfunny.

Yeah, Marvel feel more a studio movie with some vision of director here and there like wheedon or black panther who so far is the most "director made" of all marvel movies.

And the criticm of emmerich feel hollow because hell, Avenger third act is pretty much indepence day with superhero, right unto a man sacrifice by briging a bomb right into the mothership.

His movie were MCU before the MCU

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Oooooh that mention of Pacific Rim makes me feel bad for Del Toro.

Now that was a good vision ruined by corporate bullshit.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

The real issue with auteur culture is that it makes the success of a movie seem like it's entirely due to the work of the director. And while the directors are indeed a huge part of it, they aren't solely responsible for a movie's success. A movie succeeding is the result of a lot of hard fucking work from everyone involved: the directors, the studio executives, the actors, the makeup artists, the CGI developers, the choreographers, the composers, the writers, the stuntpeople, etc.

Disgusted, but not surprised

I'd also concur as those first three are my fave MCU films thus far (I'd put BP in front of Ragnarok), and I'd also rank the first Avengers (followed by plus Civil War) as my favorite standalone Avengers flick that I could just pop in and watch, despite finding Infinity War and Endgame more well-done on the whole.

And yes I'd chalk up Coppola and Scorsese's comments to old men yelling at clouds with a ridiculous amount of gatekeeping, as if art is a measure of quality and bad art isn't still true art, no matter how terrible it is. Battlefield Earth was a sincere passion project from the heart, but that didn't keep it from being abominable. Castle of Cagliostro was a licensed entry for a long-running franchise that did an offensively poor job of adapting its source material, but it's one of the finest hand-animated films to date. Neither of them are any less "art" or "cinema" than the other.

Edited by AlleyOop on Oct 20th 2019 at 10:28:09 AM

Let’s say in fairness that when the MCU started, it wasn’t under the banner of a mega corp

The first Iron Man movie was a big gamble and Marvel risked the rest of their movie rights to see it through

Forever liveblogging the Avengers

Actually, you have it backward. The original trilogy was tempered a LOT by the studio and by other creative minds. Hell, the movie widely considered the best in the series, Empire Strikes Back, is the film Goerge Lucas was involved LEAST with. In contrast, the prequel trilogy was ALL Lucas, with very little oversight and very few people telling him that his ideas were bad.

I still don’t see the difference between it and the other genres that have saturated the box office. What have superhero films done so much egregiously worse than musicals, Westerns, or 80’s Action movies that they can be seen as cinema but these films are abominations unto mankind. Are they all perfect? Hell no, but how many horrible musicals were there for every Singin' in the Rain? How many Reb Brown pieces of direct to video junk for every The Terminator a film that when it came out Gene Siskel decried for being needlessly violent? How many bad Westerns for the Dollars Trilogy or Unforgiven? What heinous crime has the genre committed to be considered despicable and its fans horrible people like Coppola suggests?

Edited by Beatman1 on Oct 20th 2019 at 10:42:44 AM

Right, there's that side of things too. We've got a Protection from Editors page for a reason.

The reality of it is that the "classics" are the best possible combination of both a strong directorial vision and studio executives making sure to provide reality checks.

Edited by M84 on Oct 20th 2019 at 10:59:27 PM

Disgusted, but not surprised

Franky can Coppo-lick my balls.

My various fanfics.

It's a consequence of the Nostalgia Filter. Some people probably have higher opinions of Westerns, musicals, etc. than they deserve because only the really good stuff from those genres is remembered. Because let's face it — most of it was crap.

The same goes with music, comic books, videogames, etc. Shit, we've got an entire generation of Internet reviewers who got their start basically taking the piss out of nostalgia.

Edited by M84 on Oct 21st 2019 at 12:30:02 AM

Disgusted, but not surprised

Charming.

I feel like westerns provide the closest parallel to the superhero "genre" in terms of how they'll be viewed in the future. I don't know if superhero films have acquired a John Ford and Sergio Leone yet but somewhere along those bylines.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

Did you know that the gorgeous Baroque architecture of the Catholic Church (i.e. St. Peter's) was essentially the 16th-century equivalent of a Michael Bay movie? It's true! It was created during the Counter-reformation as an attempt to reel the Protestants back in through sheer WOW factor.

There's nothing inherently wrong with spectacle, is what I'm saying.

The pig of Hufflepuff pulsed like a large bullfrog. Dumbledore smiled at it, and placed his hand on its head: "You are Hagrid now."

The thing that gets me is the condemnation of a genre, outside of spectacle. Marc Maron called comic book movie fans the same as religious fundamentalists, Coppola thinks they’re all despicable, and that’s enough to condemn a medium. The general message, one Scorsese didn’t go that far in (because as per Coppola he was being nice) was that comic book movie fans are idiots.

I get that a lot of these people have a very old fashioned way of thinking, but even guys like Quentin Tarantino , who speak to the value of cinema and everyone in the theatre having popcorn and watching a movie, publicly profess love for films like The 36th Chamber of Shaolin. Is that film, those emotions that it inspired in these young filmmakers any less valid because Godfrey Ho released a lot of really crappy ninja movies? Or is it only because “them damn young people” like it and we’re the idiot generation?

Even if you don’t think Black Panther was all that great, somewhere, I bet there was someone inspired to be a filmmaker the same way something like 36th Chamber inspired Tarantino. What makes one an inspiration and the other despicable and the person inspired a subject of scorn until they give up the dream and become an accountant?

Edited by Beatman1 on Oct 21st 2019 at 9:56:53 AM

See, I understand this, because he isn't talking about the movies, he's talking about the fans and the fans can get pretty damn intense. And Maron has been vocal about his dislike of the Marvel films — but he's never called them not films.

Comparing fandoms to religions isn't entirely inappropriate. Fandoms do have a tendency to develop their own language, customs, traditions, socially-accepted interpretations, and even a culture of generally accepted facts about the material that are not, in fact, in the material.

Sometimes they'll even split off into different sects, too, just like religions are known to do. Religions really are just large fandoms. The only real difference is that most fandoms don't assert that their topic of interest is real.

Although even then, there are still those people who insist on living by the Jedi Code or claim that Middle-Earth is a real point in world history....

Edited by TobiasDrake on Oct 21st 2019 at 8:34:33 AM

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

That’s a road that will end badly.

My point is that there is so much garbage that has been released on film, yet the genres those films are part of are still considered “cinema”. I just want to know what crime superhero movies committed that makes them so much more terrible than all the others. Not that a film is good or bad because you can dislike films all you want and should be allowed to express that. But the hatred for these films is described as something deeper.

Edited by Beatman1 on Oct 21st 2019 at 10:40:48 AM

Because superheroes are new and considered vapid and juvenile. This is ignoring of course how something like star Wars doesn't really compare favorably to the better marvel films in most regards, and yet they are usually given a pass. The marvel films just aren't old enough yet.

Though honestly Im curious if these guys hate superhero films indiscriminately or just Marvel and the newer ones. Do they hate Nolan's batman films too? What about Burton's batman movies and Richard donner's Superman?

Edited by Draghinazzo on Oct 21st 2019 at 10:52:39 AM

I'm not even sure that age is a factor, new films are considered 'Cinema' and get rave reviews from every film festival they get all the award nods. It will be interesting to see how the 2019 Joker film does as we get closer to Golden Globes/Oscars given its rep as a "Comic Film In Name Only"

This isn't the first time Superhero films have been bashed/not considered 'real' movies. Its been a drum beat for some time. Like Animated films are not 'real' movies they are 'for kids' and thusly do not have the same 'value' as other films, only recently have animated films started to creep into more 'cinema' territory

Lets be honest, the "Best Animated Feature" Oscar was created JUST to try and keep Animated films AWAY from the "Best Picture" category.

Superman appeared in 1938. If you count the Shadow, that's 1930. If you count the Scarlet Pimpernel, that's 1905. Superheroes are not new. Hell, superhero movies are not new. What's new is their huge popularity in the mainstream (although the first Superman movie was popular and the 1989 Batman film was insanely popular).

The MCU might not be the Trope Maker for superhero movies, but by now it is damn sure the Trope Codifier.

Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% Scandinavian

Is the trope maker for a cinematic shared universe, which maybe what some people dislike about, because it kinda change a ballgame.

share universe for example can coast some movies over name along and so far it require a huge deal of reliability, sometimes at the expense of trying new things, I think comicwriter said best that unlike DC and Universal dark universe who try high risk high reward movie that can bomb and damage the brand, Marvel movie at the worst are just safe and kinda boring, the one you will only see once or maybe twice but nothing wrong.

I can see why people would be annoyed about it, but is hard to care when they sound like cranky old man yelling at clouds

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

I'd say the Spider-Man trilogy, flaws and all, were the Trope Codifier for modern superhero movies honestly.

Edited by Dirtyblue929 on Oct 21st 2019 at 5:01:29 AM