|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 2, 2023 18:56:09 GMT
Well, after all the garbage that Martin Scorsese and the other pretentious fools have been saying it's nice to get some honest support.
"“When I first signed onto Marvel, lots of people from the indie-film world were all telling me that I was never going to go back to small movies again, and it always kind of wound me up.""
""Because I think there’s beauty in all types of those films. There’s beauty in the massive, epic storylines like 'Dune,' like Marvel, like even 'Oppenheimer' that I did. They’re amazing, mega movies. And then there’s also beauty in all these little ones that not everyone is going to see, but are going to affect the right person at the right time. I’ve never, ever only thought that I was going to just do one type of movie. I’ve always known that I want to dabble in all areas.”"
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Mar 3, 2023 2:41:39 GMT
I agree with her but it would help if the big budget films didn’t suck.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Mar 3, 2023 6:46:13 GMT
diva
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 3, 2023 7:02:40 GMT
Well, after all the garbage that Martin Scorsese and the other pretentious fools have been saying it's nice to get some honest support.
"“When I first signed onto Marvel, lots of people from the indie-film world were all telling me that I was never going to go back to small movies again, and it always kind of wound me up.""
""Because I think there’s beauty in all types of those films. There’s beauty in the massive, epic storylines like 'Dune,' like Marvel, like even 'Oppenheimer' that I did. They’re amazing, mega movies. And then there’s also beauty in all these little ones that not everyone is going to see, but are going to affect the right person at the right time. I’ve never, ever only thought that I was going to just do one type of movie. I’ve always known that I want to dabble in all areas.”"
It's good that she doesn't want to limit herself on projects, but what was is that Scorsese said that was "garbage" and "foolish"? In a statement he said he has no ill will against Marvel movies, the people who make them, and those that enjoy them, he thinks that there are too many major studio releases of such a kind that every time a big release goes to the theaters it is expected to be the equivalent of an amusement park ride instead of something more dramatically complex and artistically more unique.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 3, 2023 14:23:12 GMT
Well, after all the garbage that Martin Scorsese and the other pretentious fools have been saying it's nice to get some honest support.
"“When I first signed onto Marvel, lots of people from the indie-film world were all telling me that I was never going to go back to small movies again, and it always kind of wound me up.""
""Because I think there’s beauty in all types of those films. There’s beauty in the massive, epic storylines like 'Dune,' like Marvel, like even 'Oppenheimer' that I did. They’re amazing, mega movies. And then there’s also beauty in all these little ones that not everyone is going to see, but are going to affect the right person at the right time. I’ve never, ever only thought that I was going to just do one type of movie. I’ve always known that I want to dabble in all areas.”"
It's good that she doesn't want to limit herself on projects, but what was is that Scorsese said that was "garbage" and "foolish"? In a statement he said he has no ill will against Marvel movies, the people who make them, and those that enjoy them, he thinks that there are too many major studio releases of such a kind that every time a big release goes to the theaters it is expected to be the equivalent of an amusement park ride instead of something more dramatically complex and artistically more unique. He says that he thinks it's impossible for anything they put out to be dramatically complex or "artistically unique" in that regard.
It isn't like Taxi Driver is that deep. Nor was Goodfellas.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 4, 2023 3:42:23 GMT
It's good that she doesn't want to limit herself on projects, but what was is that Scorsese said that was "garbage" and "foolish"? In a statement he said he has no ill will against Marvel movies, the people who make them, and those that enjoy them, he thinks that there are too many major studio releases of such a kind that every time a big release goes to the theaters it is expected to be the equivalent of an amusement park ride instead of something more dramatically complex and artistically more unique. He says that he thinks it's impossible for anything they put out to be dramatically complex or "artistically unique" in that regard.
It isn't like Taxi Driver is that deep. Nor was Goodfellas.
To an extent, he is not wrong. Most modern major studio releases, especially franchise pictures like a Marvel movie, are more studio driven than filmmaker driven. The filmmakers who are hired are less of the painter who selects the color and more of the hand that strokes it on page following a blueprint. On occasion, when the filmmakers approach lines up very nicely to the vision of the studio, they are allowed to have some creative freedom but not 100% because there are guidelines to follow, and the work has to have universal commercial appeal and guarantee crowd pleasing success. Not to suggest a film being studio driven is a bad thing, necessarily - in some cases it was for the best that they had more control over a project, in other cases, no it wasn't (the reception of a work is the best indicator who was in the right or in the wrong). In Scorsese's youth, the Hollywood blockbusters put out were the likes of Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Psycho, The Birds, Charade, Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront, Ace in the Hole, The Magnificent Seven, The Dollars Trilogy, Picnic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus, The Quiet Man, The Wild One, The Red Badge of Courage, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, An American in Paris, Paths of Glory, Night of the Hunter, Some Like it Hot, Rio Bravo, Touch of Evil, The Searchers, and Twelve Angry Men...But if made these days most would probably go to streaming with not a strong audience to latch onto them. Marvel Studios, to give credit, used to be more stylistically experimental and gave the filmmakers a little more freedom to put their own stamp on the subject matter, but now most ( I am not saying all, but most) of their output looks so similar to each other you might as well say they were directed by the same exact person and most of the stories being told are neither that exciting, creative, or very inspiring (in my opinion). Compared to the average Marvel movie, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas are that deep. They are both intended for adult viewers and explore themes and situations you would not find in something aimed to sell huge to the marketplace and have tie-in merchandise. There are a lot of pretty heavy stories featuring Spider-Man that deal with street violence and drug abuse with villains not of the fantastic kind but neither Marvel or Sony intend to tell a story like such on the big screen because they recognize how strong the commercial appeal is to the character.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 4, 2023 5:04:24 GMT
He says that he thinks it's impossible for anything they put out to be dramatically complex or "artistically unique" in that regard.
It isn't like Taxi Driver is that deep. Nor was Goodfellas.
To an extent, he is not wrong. Most modern major studio releases, especially franchise pictures like a Marvel movie, are more studio driven than filmmaker driven. The filmmakers who are hired are less of the painter who selects the color and more of the hand that strokes it on page following a blueprint. On occasion, when the filmmakers approach lines up very nicely to the vision of the studio, they are allowed to have some creative freedom but not 100% because there are guidelines to follow, and the work has to have universal commercial appeal and guarantee crowd pleasing success. Not to suggest a film being studio driven is a bad thing, necessarily - in some cases it was for the best that they had more control over a project, in other cases, no it wasn't (the reception of a work is the best indicator who was in the right or in the wrong). In Scorsese's youth, the Hollywood blockbusters put out were the likes of Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Psycho, The Birds, Charade, Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront, Ace in the Hole, The Magnificent Seven, The Dollars Trilogy, Picnic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus, The Quiet Man, The Wild One, The Red Badge of Courage, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, An American in Paris, Paths of Glory, Night of the Hunter, Some Like it Hot, Rio Bravo, Touch of Evil, The Searchers, and Twelve Angry Men...But if made these days most would probably go to streaming with not a strong audience to latch onto them. Marvel Studios, to give credit, used to be more stylistically experimental and gave the filmmakers a little more freedom to put their own stamp on the subject matter, but now most ( I am not saying all, but most) of their output looks so similar to each other you might as well say they were directed by the same exact person and most of the stories being told are neither that exciting, creative, or very inspiring (in my opinion). Compared to the average Marvel movie, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas are that deep. They are both intended for adult viewers and explore themes and situations you would not find in something aimed to sell huge to the marketplace and have tie-in merchandise. There are a lot of pretty heavy stories featuring Spider-Man that deal with street violence and drug abuse with villains not of the fantastic kind but neither Marvel or Sony intend to tell a story like such on the big screen because they recognize how strong the commercial appeal is to the character. Taxi Driver failed at its own plot because Scorsese wanted Travis to be unlikable but he failed to do so, and then Goodfellas failed at its purpose because as usual the Gangster Lifestyle was too glamorized for anyone to walk away thinking how awful gangsters are.
As for that big paragraph stuff, total Director control is what gave us films like "Heaven's Gate". So there's a time when narcissistic control freaks need to be reined in.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 4, 2023 9:38:10 GMT
To an extent, he is not wrong. Most modern major studio releases, especially franchise pictures like a Marvel movie, are more studio driven than filmmaker driven. The filmmakers who are hired are less of the painter who selects the color and more of the hand that strokes it on page following a blueprint. On occasion, when the filmmakers approach lines up very nicely to the vision of the studio, they are allowed to have some creative freedom but not 100% because there are guidelines to follow, and the work has to have universal commercial appeal and guarantee crowd pleasing success. Not to suggest a film being studio driven is a bad thing, necessarily - in some cases it was for the best that they had more control over a project, in other cases, no it wasn't (the reception of a work is the best indicator who was in the right or in the wrong). In Scorsese's youth, the Hollywood blockbusters put out were the likes of Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Psycho, The Birds, Charade, Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront, Ace in the Hole, The Magnificent Seven, The Dollars Trilogy, Picnic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus, The Quiet Man, The Wild One, The Red Badge of Courage, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, An American in Paris, Paths of Glory, Night of the Hunter, Some Like it Hot, Rio Bravo, Touch of Evil, The Searchers, and Twelve Angry Men...But if made these days most would probably go to streaming with not a strong audience to latch onto them. Marvel Studios, to give credit, used to be more stylistically experimental and gave the filmmakers a little more freedom to put their own stamp on the subject matter, but now most ( I am not saying all, but most) of their output looks so similar to each other you might as well say they were directed by the same exact person and most of the stories being told are neither that exciting, creative, or very inspiring (in my opinion). Compared to the average Marvel movie, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas are that deep. They are both intended for adult viewers and explore themes and situations you would not find in something aimed to sell huge to the marketplace and have tie-in merchandise. There are a lot of pretty heavy stories featuring Spider-Man that deal with street violence and drug abuse with villains not of the fantastic kind but neither Marvel or Sony intend to tell a story like such on the big screen because they recognize how strong the commercial appeal is to the character. Taxi Driver failed at its own plot because Scorsese wanted Travis to be unlikable but he failed to do so, and then Goodfellas failed at its purpose because as usual the Gangster Lifestyle was too glamorized for anyone to walk away thinking how awful gangsters are.
As for that big paragraph stuff, total Director control is what gave us films like "Heaven's Gate". So there's a time when narcissistic control freaks need to be reined in.
I'm not talking about what worked and what didn't in Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, I am saying that they are very heavy films that were filmmaker driven that were not designed for mass commercial appeal (like with tie-in merchandizing such as action figures, happy meals, video games, etc.) - In fact, the closest you could say a film like Goodfellas got to having appeal to a younger demographic was through parody on Animaniacs as Goodfeathers. There are some pretty dark and edgy stories that have been told by Marvel Comics throughout the years but Marvel Studios isn't likely to adapt them in their entirety because most of their characters have universal consumer appeal, like Spider-Man. They couldn't adapt Demon in a Bottle with Iron Man for example so the best they could do was one or two scenes in Iron Man 2, which were pretty tame in comparison to what influenced them. The Punisher especially by Garth Ennis has very intense storylines but I don't see Marvel Studios making a movie about, say, The Slavers. It depends on the project and the parties involved.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 4, 2023 15:36:15 GMT
Taxi Driver failed at its own plot because Scorsese wanted Travis to be unlikable but he failed to do so, and then Goodfellas failed at its purpose because as usual the Gangster Lifestyle was too glamorized for anyone to walk away thinking how awful gangsters are.
As for that big paragraph stuff, total Director control is what gave us films like "Heaven's Gate". So there's a time when narcissistic control freaks need to be reined in.
I'm not talking about what worked and what didn't in Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, I am saying that they are very heavy films that were filmmaker driven that were not designed for mass commercial appeal (like with tie-in merchandizing such as action figures, happy meals, video games, etc.) - In fact, the closest you could say a film like Goodfellas got to having appeal to a younger demographic was through parody on Animaniacs as Goodfeathers. There are some pretty dark and edgy stories that have been told by Marvel Comics throughout the years but Marvel Studios isn't likely to adapt them in their entirety because most of their characters have universal consumer appeal, like Spider-Man. They couldn't adapt Demon in a Bottle with Iron Man for example so the best they could do was one or two scenes in Iron Man 2, which were pretty tame in comparison to what influenced them. The Punisher especially by Garth Ennis has very intense storylines but I don't see Marvel Studios making a movie about, say, The Slavers. It depends on the project and the parties involved. The Demon in the Bottle story wasn't that good in the first place so it's no great loss. And Garth Ennis' writing isn't worth adapting to the screen.
"Very Heavy films" is an excuse to cover up how both films fail at their basic premises, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. That shows real incompetence on the directors' part.
Scorsese is very much of the same breed as Michael Cimino, he's just lucky he never had his "Heaven's Gate".
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Mar 4, 2023 15:52:35 GMT
He says that he thinks it's impossible for anything they put out to be dramatically complex or "artistically unique" in that regard.
It isn't like Taxi Driver is that deep. Nor was Goodfellas.
To an extent, he is not wrong. Most modern major studio releases, especially franchise pictures like a Marvel movie, are more studio driven than filmmaker driven. The filmmakers who are hired are less of the painter who selects the color and more of the hand that strokes it on page following a blueprint. On occasion, when the filmmakers approach lines up very nicely to the vision of the studio, they are allowed to have some creative freedom but not 100% because there are guidelines to follow, and the work has to have universal commercial appeal and guarantee crowd pleasing success. Not to suggest a film being studio driven is a bad thing, necessarily - in some cases it was for the best that they had more control over a project, in other cases, no it wasn't (the reception of a work is the best indicator who was in the right or in the wrong). In Scorsese's youth, the Hollywood blockbusters put out were the likes of Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Dial M for Murder, Psycho, The Birds, Charade, Blackboard Jungle, On the Waterfront, Ace in the Hole, The Magnificent Seven, The Dollars Trilogy, Picnic, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, Spartacus, The Quiet Man, The Wild One, The Red Badge of Courage, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, An American in Paris, Paths of Glory, Night of the Hunter, Some Like it Hot, Rio Bravo, Touch of Evil, The Searchers, and Twelve Angry Men...But if made these days most would probably go to streaming with not a strong audience to latch onto them. Marvel Studios, to give credit, used to be more stylistically experimental and gave the filmmakers a little more freedom to put their own stamp on the subject matter, but now most ( I am not saying all, but most) of their output looks so similar to each other you might as well say they were directed by the same exact person and most of the stories being told are neither that exciting, creative, or very inspiring (in my opinion). Compared to the average Marvel movie, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas are that deep. They are both intended for adult viewers and explore themes and situations you would not find in something aimed to sell huge to the marketplace and have tie-in merchandise. There are a lot of pretty heavy stories featuring Spider-Man that deal with street violence and drug abuse with villains not of the fantastic kind but neither Marvel or Sony intend to tell a story like such on the big screen because they recognize how strong the commercial appeal is to the character. Just want to say how hilarious it is that fictional characters from New York played by Robert De Niro are always perceived as "deep". Also, a guy who fought for his country now banished to a cab driver job having a meltdown and gangsters wanting to gangster ain't all that deep.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Mar 4, 2023 19:49:43 GMT
Well, after all the garbage that Martin Scorsese and the other pretentious fools have been saying it's nice to get some honest support.
"“When I first signed onto Marvel, lots of people from the indie-film world were all telling me that I was never going to go back to small movies again, and it always kind of wound me up.""
""Because I think there’s beauty in all types of those films. There’s beauty in the massive, epic storylines like 'Dune,' like Marvel, like even 'Oppenheimer' that I did. They’re amazing, mega movies. And then there’s also beauty in all these little ones that not everyone is going to see, but are going to affect the right person at the right time. I’ve never, ever only thought that I was going to just do one type of movie. I’ve always known that I want to dabble in all areas.”"
It's good that she doesn't want to limit herself on projects, but what was is that Scorsese said that was "garbage" and "foolish"? In a statement he said he has no ill will against Marvel movies, the people who make them, and those that enjoy them, he thinks that there are too many major studio releases of such a kind that every time a big release goes to the theaters it is expected to be the equivalent of an amusement park ride instead of something more dramatically complex and artistically more unique. The comment that resonated most strongly against me is that films about about human connection, which in context is his argument against the artistic value of the Marvel movies. To me that argument has zero value because if there is psychological or emotional connection for you, then it's as valid as any that comes from any other movie. Scorsese is and will likely always will be one of my favourite ever directors, but he's wrong to pose the MCU as films without those connections. I have them, so to me his premise is dead on arrival.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 4, 2023 21:13:55 GMT
I'm not talking about what worked and what didn't in Taxi Driver or Goodfellas, I am saying that they are very heavy films that were filmmaker driven that were not designed for mass commercial appeal (like with tie-in merchandizing such as action figures, happy meals, video games, etc.) - In fact, the closest you could say a film like Goodfellas got to having appeal to a younger demographic was through parody on Animaniacs as Goodfeathers. There are some pretty dark and edgy stories that have been told by Marvel Comics throughout the years but Marvel Studios isn't likely to adapt them in their entirety because most of their characters have universal consumer appeal, like Spider-Man. They couldn't adapt Demon in a Bottle with Iron Man for example so the best they could do was one or two scenes in Iron Man 2, which were pretty tame in comparison to what influenced them. The Punisher especially by Garth Ennis has very intense storylines but I don't see Marvel Studios making a movie about, say, The Slavers. It depends on the project and the parties involved. The Demon in the Bottle story wasn't that good in the first place so it's no great loss. And Garth Ennis' writing isn't worth adapting to the screen.
"Very Heavy films" is an excuse to cover up how both films fail at their basic premises, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. That shows real incompetence on the directors' part.
Scorsese is very much of the same breed as Michael Cimino, he's just lucky he never had his "Heaven's Gate".
I am saying that such stories are very unlikely to be touched on by Marvel Studios because the Marvel Cinematic Universe is to have universal appeal and present a consumer-friendly image - which, to clarify, I don't see as being a problem. Deadpool 3 could be a sign of a more diversified landscape in product appeal for the future. You can dislike Taxi Driver and Goodfellas as much as you wish, but the point that I am getting at is that they are both examples of films that were filmmaker driven, were not designed to be consumer friendly with aims for universal appeal, and were, especially in the case of Taxi Driver, seen as controversial. However, they also managed to have critical acclaim despite the controversy, the line between controversy and acclaim is what makes these works still talked about today - your criticism of them actually shows how the art still has a level of impact on culture and things of them are still worth debate about. In comparison to Marvel Studios the most debate made post a release of their work might be Captain America: Civil War, as audience members left conflicted about who was right or wrong between Iron Man and Captain America, but otherwise you have a clear distinction of good and evil, and you want and expect good to prevail in the end and come home feeling satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Mar 4, 2023 22:43:08 GMT
The Demon in the Bottle story wasn't that good in the first place so it's no great loss. And Garth Ennis' writing isn't worth adapting to the screen.
"Very Heavy films" is an excuse to cover up how both films fail at their basic premises, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. That shows real incompetence on the directors' part.
Scorsese is very much of the same breed as Michael Cimino, he's just lucky he never had his "Heaven's Gate".
I am saying that such stories are very unlikely to be touched on by Marvel Studios because the Marvel Cinematic Universe is to have universal appeal and present a consumer-friendly image - which, to clarify, I don't see as being a problem. Deadpool 3 could be a sign of a more diversified landscape in product appeal for the future. You can dislike Taxi Driver and Goodfellas as much as you wish, but the point that I am getting at is that they are both examples of films that were filmmaker driven, were not designed to be consumer friendly with aims for universal appeal, and were, especially in the case of Taxi Driver, seen as controversial. However, they also managed to have critical acclaim despite the controversy, the line between controversy and acclaim is what makes these works still talked about today - your criticism of them actually shows how the art still has a level of impact on culture and things of them are still worth debate about. In comparison to Marvel Studios the most debate made post a release of their work might be Captain America: Civil War, as audience members left conflicted about who was right or wrong between Iron Man and Captain America, but otherwise you have a clear distinction of good and evil, and you want and expect good to prevail in the end and come home feeling satisfied. Taxi driver was about mental health and being stuck in a deadend job you don't think that would have universal appeal? Especially during these times?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 5, 2023 2:05:03 GMT
The Demon in the Bottle story wasn't that good in the first place so it's no great loss. And Garth Ennis' writing isn't worth adapting to the screen.
"Very Heavy films" is an excuse to cover up how both films fail at their basic premises, Taxi Driver and Goodfellas. That shows real incompetence on the directors' part.
Scorsese is very much of the same breed as Michael Cimino, he's just lucky he never had his "Heaven's Gate".
I am saying that such stories are very unlikely to be touched on by Marvel Studios because the Marvel Cinematic Universe is to have universal appeal and present a consumer-friendly image - which, to clarify, I don't see as being a problem. Deadpool 3 could be a sign of a more diversified landscape in product appeal for the future. You can dislike Taxi Driver and Goodfellas as much as you wish, but the point that I am getting at is that they are both examples of films that were filmmaker driven, were not designed to be consumer friendly with aims for universal appeal, and were, especially in the case of Taxi Driver, seen as controversial. However, they also managed to have critical acclaim despite the controversy, the line between controversy and acclaim is what makes these works still talked about today - your criticism of them actually shows how the art still has a level of impact on culture and things of them are still worth debate about. In comparison to Marvel Studios the most debate made post a release of their work might be Captain America: Civil War, as audience members left conflicted about who was right or wrong between Iron Man and Captain America, but otherwise you have a clear distinction of good and evil, and you want and expect good to prevail in the end and come home feeling satisfied. Please, leave it to the Deadpool fans and we'd have gratuitous sex scenes between teenage Peter Parker and teenage MJ. The MCU is better off without that.
So the MCU actually bothers telling whole stories and not being pretentious and high on their self of self-importance. Whereas those "controversial" films failed their own premises.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 5, 2023 9:09:26 GMT
I am saying that such stories are very unlikely to be touched on by Marvel Studios because the Marvel Cinematic Universe is to have universal appeal and present a consumer-friendly image - which, to clarify, I don't see as being a problem. Deadpool 3 could be a sign of a more diversified landscape in product appeal for the future. You can dislike Taxi Driver and Goodfellas as much as you wish, but the point that I am getting at is that they are both examples of films that were filmmaker driven, were not designed to be consumer friendly with aims for universal appeal, and were, especially in the case of Taxi Driver, seen as controversial. However, they also managed to have critical acclaim despite the controversy, the line between controversy and acclaim is what makes these works still talked about today - your criticism of them actually shows how the art still has a level of impact on culture and things of them are still worth debate about. In comparison to Marvel Studios the most debate made post a release of their work might be Captain America: Civil War, as audience members left conflicted about who was right or wrong between Iron Man and Captain America, but otherwise you have a clear distinction of good and evil, and you want and expect good to prevail in the end and come home feeling satisfied. Please, leave it to the Deadpool fans and we'd have gratuitous sex scenes between teenage Peter Parker and teenage MJ. The MCU is better off without that.
So the MCU actually bothers telling whole stories and not being pretentious and high on their self of self-importance. Whereas those "controversial" films failed their own premises.
*Sighs* No, I'm not suggesting that Deadpool should become the norm for the Marvel Cinematic Universe (let alone give the character's fan base the position of Kevin Feige - no idea where that idea came from), I am saying the third movie might open the door for Marvel Studios to produce content for more specific demographics and telling stories that are atypical to what the average consumer can expect from a Marvel Cinematic Universe installment - which is all theory, based on the last two Deadpool movies being rated R, and that we will be seeing The Punisher and Jessica Jones in the near future in Daredevil: Born Again, which could be rated TV-MA. You're missing the whole point, again.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Mar 5, 2023 9:49:52 GMT
She is just shilling.
Scorsese is complaining that Hollywood is downsizing --but remember he is the guy who played the cab passenger in Taxi Driver who was driven mad by his wife having an affair with a black guy. He took the knee for the Woke a long time ago. He was a fan of low budget film but he never really suggested that there needed to be competition for Hollywood. He didn't mind Hollywood downsizing as long as he was getting so much attention and support.
He realizes as an older liberal now--that Hollywood is closing shop. He would not be hired if he was a young filmmaker. His gender and skin hue will prevent him being hired. I assume that must disturb him since it means the death of European cinema. But he can't come to say it. He doesn't want to be given the Scott Adams treatment for pointing out that cinema was invented by Europe and yet native Europeans are shunned by the commercial industry. So he laments it by focusing on the Marvel movie.
He is the taxi passenger for real and all he can do is cackle in the back of the cab about how unjust it is that he has been fucked over by diversity.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 5, 2023 16:11:31 GMT
Please, leave it to the Deadpool fans and we'd have gratuitous sex scenes between teenage Peter Parker and teenage MJ. The MCU is better off without that.
So the MCU actually bothers telling whole stories and not being pretentious and high on their self of self-importance. Whereas those "controversial" films failed their own premises.
*Sighs* No, I'm not suggesting that Deadpool should become the norm for the Marvel Cinematic Universe (let alone give the character's fan base the position of Kevin Feige - no idea where that idea came from), I am saying the third movie might open the door for Marvel Studios to produce content for more specific demographics and telling stories that are atypical to what the average consumer can expect from a Marvel Cinematic Universe installment - which is all theory, based on the last two Deadpool movies being rated R, and that we will be seeing The Punisher and Jessica Jones in the near future in Daredevil: Born Again, which could be rated TV-MA. You're missing the whole point, again. We already got MA level stuff with Werewolf by Night, they just were inventive about it.
The point is, for all their "critical acclaim" those movies failed in their core premises. Scorsese wanted people to dislike Travis Bickle and instead he inspired a Presidential Assassination attempt. They're hardly the flawless films they're made out to be.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 5, 2023 22:35:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Mar 6, 2023 0:56:26 GMT
*Sighs* No, I'm not suggesting that Deadpool should become the norm for the Marvel Cinematic Universe (let alone give the character's fan base the position of Kevin Feige - no idea where that idea came from), I am saying the third movie might open the door for Marvel Studios to produce content for more specific demographics and telling stories that are atypical to what the average consumer can expect from a Marvel Cinematic Universe installment - which is all theory, based on the last two Deadpool movies being rated R, and that we will be seeing The Punisher and Jessica Jones in the near future in Daredevil: Born Again, which could be rated TV-MA. You're missing the whole point, again. We already got MA level stuff with Werewolf by Night, they just were inventive about it.
The point is, for all their "critical acclaim" those movies failed in their core premises. Scorsese wanted people to dislike Travis Bickle and instead he inspired a Presidential Assassination attempt. They're hardly the flawless films they're made out to be.
Which was edited to be in black-and-white, for stylistic purposes largely but also for rating as well. Daredevil: Born Again and Deadpool 3 won't be in black-and-white, time will tell if they present the kind of content their predecessors had. John Hinkley, Jr., of whom you are referring to, was a man in crisis and suffered severe mental health problems long before he even saw the film Taxi Driver. He was on a long list of antidepressants and tranquilizers to help him deal with his severe emotional problems, and he had a concerning obsession with assault weapons and acts of violence. Research has deduced that even if the film Taxi Driver never existed, as well as its source novel of the same exact name, Hinkley, Jr. was on a dark path that could have resulted in something tragic. Neither the author of the source novel, the director of the film, or even its star should have any blame for the actions of Hinkley, Jr. The majority of the people who saw and continue to watch the film today have not taken the wrong message from it.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Mar 6, 2023 1:00:55 GMT
Not only have I never heard of her, but I'm also having difficulty trusting the judgement of a 20 something nobody over that of a master filmmaker like Scorcese.
|
|