Spidey OUT of MCU

It's a good thing that, at the least, Feige will get to/have to resolve the cliffhanger he released and the resolution won't be dismissed just because he isn't involved.

 

Well, if you wanna talk about the filmmakers' response, while he did appear more sad than angry, James Gunn apparently thought Scorsese "dismissed (his) films unseen", when Scorsese clearly said that he gave the MCU movies a try. It seems even celebrities fall prey to clickbait headlines.

 

The GoTG movies are cute, funny fluff. Very enjoyable, but trivial.

 

Just like your posts in MCU threads.

 

Saying he 'tried' does not mean he watched a single one of Gunn's films at all. It doesn't necessarily even mean he really watched any of them at all. It could mean he watched the first five minutes of Iron Man and gave up, we really don't know. The only thing we can say with reasonable certainty based on his comments is that he clearly stopped trying some time ago, so his opinion of every mcu movie since then is based on his judgement of some unspecified completely different movie that came out years before. He is literally dismissing them unseen. That's not clickbait.

 

People keep ignoring the fact that the problem isn't that he doesn't like the films, the problem is that he said they "aren't cinema". Every damn film is "cinema". Iron Man, The Avengers, Spider-Man, hell even batman v Superman are just as much "cinema" as Tazi Driver or shit like Shutter Island. I don't care if an out of touch, overrated septuagenarian director doesn't like Marvel films, the fact that he's acting like he has the authority to declare movies "cinema" or, as is pretty much implied, "real films" is the part that makes him an asshole.

The Scorsese stuff I've stomached has been boring, glacial shit, but they're still real movies/"cinema". So is every damn movie. He's acting like a lot of old people who work in many mediums do, declaring stuff that came after them to not be "real" because it doesn't meet some bullshit standard they invented in their head. Some Rockers don't consider rap music to be real music, old reporters didn't like the internet, radio people (and movie people) didn't like television when it came along, people like Spielberg whined and complained about VHS, it goes on and on.

TLDR: It doesn't matter that Scorsese doesn't like the MCU, the problem is him acting like they are any less "real" then his films, or that he has any authority to declare what is and isn't "real cinema".

 

You break down his words in a nitpicky way, but you jump to conclusions yourself. Yes, he said "he tried", which doesn't mean he watched some of them. But then, what else would it mean? Seriously, what is the alternative you propose?
And my point was, he said he tried, meaning he watched some of them. He didn't specify which ones he watched, so GotG might actually be among those he watched, therefore Gunn can't just say Scorsese dismissed his movies unseen, because he doesn't know
Furthermore, Scorsese might have seen other films of Gunn, he might have seen Super, or Slither, he might have even liked them, but they were not what was talked about. The topic were the MCU movies, which all have a similar house-style, even Gunn's, so even if Scorsese didn't see GotG, it is not unreasonable to dismiss these movies for himself. I mean, if you watched Toho's King Kong vs. Godzilla and Mothra, and decided that you didn't like them, would you bother watching Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster?

For fuck's sake, if anybody should understand using absolute terminology to express their own personal opinion, it should be you. When he says "they aren't cinema", it follows that he has a personal definition of "cinema" that goes beyond the objective one, because on objective terms, any moving pictures projected onto a screen is cinema. So, what he's saying is that there are things that attract him to cinema, and that the MCU movies don't offer him that.

 

He was saying that, to him, they weren't "real movies", which is bullshit. You can't just declare movies you don't like to be less "real" then the ones you do (or, in his case, the ones he makes). Again, shit like Taxi Driver is no more or less "cinema" then Guardians of the Galaxy is. He doesn't have to like them, but he was being an absolute prick, just like several other shitty old Hollywood people (James Cameron being another big example, although Scorsese isn't a huge hypocrite like cameron is).

If he wasn't an asshole, he would have said "I don't like them". Instead, he said "I don't consider them to be real films", and that is not an "opinion". I can't say that the Twilight books aren't novels, because it is an objective fact that they are. In the same way, he has no right or authority to claim any movie isn't cinema, or that shit he likes is intrinsically better then Marvel films.

In the end, it doesn't matter that much. he's an obsolete fossil who makes mediocre film snob bait movies, but its how big of a prick he's being that pisses me off, along with how dismissive he's being of the people that worked on those movies and the people that love them by treating them as lesser then the boring shit he makes.

 

You tell me not to make assumptions and jump straight back to the same ridiculous assumption. There are lots of things 'I tried' could mean, up to and including quitting partway through one film and never watching another. But the phrase "I couldn't", not to mention "I don't see them", clearly indicates he didn't last long, so the odds of him still checking them out in 2014 or later or of him just happening to have seen the 2 specific movies out of 23 that Gunn did are clearly not great. And even if he did actually choose Guardians as one of the ones he tried to watch, it wouldn't change Gunn's point in the slightest. He's still passing a harsh judgement on at least a dozen plus movies he's never seen based on what he thinks they're probably like - regardless of whether he's doing it to James Gunn or to Peyton Reed or to John Watts or whoever else. And no, the Marvel 'style' is not even remotely so universal that watching one or even five of them is enough info to judge them all.

No one would've cared in the slightest if he said 'I don't watch them. I tried, but they weren't for me.' That is what choosing whether you're interested in a series looks like. You don't watch 2 films (or whatever imaginary number you think we should pull out of his comments) and then say that based on those these other 15-20 different movies are not cinema because they're clearly all pure 'theme park' fluff. That's just ridiculous.

Also, btw, he defined his use of the word cinema right there in the quote. 'That's not the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.' He is not saying he just doesn't connect with them, he's saying they objectively don't meet his definition of cinema. Which is just plain false in the case of many different examples (especially the ones Gunn made, but also definitely Black Panther, Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War, Ant-man, Captain Marvel, etc) - which he would know if he'd watched them.

 

You know what, I'm already regretting getting involved. Because it appears to me, you just want to be outraged. You want to be offended. How dare he have a low opinion of the MCU. And how dare I downplay this as just an opinion. How dare I offer different interpretations of his words.

So, instead of going through your posts and reply to each and every point to draw this out into a tedious debate where we eventually just debate because we can't bear to be not 100% right, I'll let Iron Man talk some sense:

 

Downy's a grown-up.

 

That's not what he meant by using the term "cinema". It is the art of the medium he's referring to, which leaves out (as one would conclude) films such as (for a few examples) anything by Ed Wood, Ishtar or the Schumacher Batman movies. There's a difference. That was his point, and he's largely correct.

Quoted for truth.

 

A big part of making a film is knowing some won't like it and will criticize, even won't like and will dismiss the kind of film it is, since that is so much a part of working in films at all they shouldn't take it personally.

And part of making a film in a series or franchise is that you and it will get and be associated with both the positive and negative impressions people already have of the previous installments.

What emotional, psychological experiences were conveyed in Ant-Man?

 

I can see both sides of this debate. I've always been peeved that Christoper Reeves didn't even get a nomination for the way he played Superman and Clark Kent. Anyone who knows anything about acting will tell you that he did a fantastic job and made these characters far more real than they ever had been before. He basically opened a door that allowed everyone to take that type of role seriously for the first time. But the academy always thumbs its nose at superhero, science fiction and horror movies. Robert Downey did do a good job with the way he played Tony Stark as did Chris Evans as Captain America and Tom Hiddleston with Loki. The MCU has done a great job with its casting and it should be recognized for that.

On the flip side, the MCU does seem very formulaic. Most of the movies are enjoyed but easily forgotten. They aren't something that I spend too much time analyzing like say... the latest Joker movie. I never really get the mood to rewatch them either like I do with Star Wars , Indiana Jones or Batman. Avengers 1 and Infinity War would be the rare exceptions. In the end its all a matter of taste and MCU fans need to stop taking constructive criticism so personally.

 

Good question. That can be extended to other MCU films.

Not always. Frederic March was awarded a (tied) Best Actor award for the timeless Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932), a film bodly and unabashedly horrific as it was dramatic in the other themes it explored.

True; some are almost interchangeable, save for the fact you know there are different actors in the key roles.

Again, true; some live and die by these films--far too much emotional investment in something that is so often just a product, and become incredibly hostile toward anyone "daring" to analyze--instead of praise--the films, as we see with the attacks on Scorsese.

 

Not to disagree with your general point, but I'd just like to point out that while Ed Wood was hampered by a lack of technical talents in filmmaking, Glen Or Glenda was very much an expression of his inner self and as such a piece of art. It's not good, but it is art.

 

A father trying to stay in his daughter's life, and be a role model for her, even though he's made mistakes, and that same father feeling pulled back to those mistakes and feeling regret about it because of his daughter (Scott & Cassie)? A daughter trying to prove herself to her father who wants only to protect her, but also holds her back from what she is truly capable of (Hope & Hank)? I mean, I'm not saying they are the thing that holds the film together or that it is high art because it is at its heart a heist film, but they are there.

 

Ant-Man was a horrible example to use when asking that question. The answer is very obvious, as you described.

 

Scott didn't seem to be trying real hard or be repentant, it felt like Hank was right that the moment, or second or third, that things were tough he went back to crime. And despite Hank calling him out on that the tone was very light, giving some attention to the character's flaws and their consequences but not much, not much focus or weight. I guess that's a bit of content but pretty underwhelming (though the movie overall was OK). And, after getting a new chance and the relationship, in his next appearance he becomes a criminal fugitive.

To me that, or at least Hank's side of it, felt really, really underdeveloped, to the point of being unbelievable, Hank training his daughter but not having her use that tech to go on the mission, seemingly just so that there would be something additional for a sequel.