• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

What grade would you give the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (Ever-Changing Question)

  • Total voters
    185
Last edited:
Serveaux said:
"There's room for all kinds of cinema."

Yeah, on HBO. Not so much at the multiplex.

But it's understandable - Portman is an actor of some ambition and accomplishment who, like everybody else these days, is playing a comic book character.
Click to expand...

Playing a comic book character is no different from playing a Swashbuckler or a Western hero or the lead in a Period Drama.
 
Scorsese and the others of his generation that are grumbling about this are mostly just a little bit slow to wake up and smell the 21st century. It's a little sad because the industry has been headed in this direction since the late 70's; pretty much the moment 'Star Wars' came out. Ever since the golden age Hollywood has gone through this boom-and-bust cycle of producing bigger and more spectacular films to drawn in audiences, only for it all to collapse under it's own weight, leaving the was open for smaller auteur films to fill the void and start the whole thing over again.

The difference this time around is that there's an alternate medium capable of supporting mid-to-low budget movies, if their snobbish directors can wrap their brains around the concept that this is the preferred venue for their kinds of movies these day.
 
Reverend said:
Scorsese and the others of his generation that are grumbling about this are mostly just a little bit slow to wake up and smell the 21st century. It's a little sad because the industry has been headed in this direction since the late 70's; pretty much the moment 'Star Wars' came out. Ever since the golden age Hollywood has gone through this boom-and-bust cycle of producing bigger and more spectacular films to drawn in audiences, only for it all to collapse under it's own weight, leaving the was open for smaller auteur films to fill the void and start the whole thing over again.

The difference this time around is that there's an alternate medium capable of supporting mid-to-low budget movies, if their snobbish directors can wrap their brains around the concept that this is the preferred venue for their kinds of movies these day.
Click to expand...

It was before Star Wars. Jaws actually started this, which makes it funny because guys like Scorcese and Coppola actually supported Spielberg.
 
JD said:
Natalie Portman has responded to the negative comments about the MCU.
Click to expand...

Natalie Portman said:
I think there's room for all types of cinema
Click to expand...

There should be but the huge and longstanding success of MCU and other big Disney blockbusters and studio expectations and demands that nearly all their movies should be similarly big does seem to be drastically limiting the release-ability of non-mass market blockbusters and that will very understandably cause drama filmmakers to be more upset.
 
Reverend said:
The difference this time around is that there's an alternate medium capable of supporting mid-to-low budget movies, if their snobbish directors can wrap their brains around the concept that this is the preferred venue for their kinds of movies these day.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's snobbish to regret that netflix, maybe amazon, maybe hulu would be the main distributors of artsy and dramatic films, that the older type of distribution and release die out and people have to spend monthly for a channel to have access, let alone that that whole kind of film should die out and artists should have to instead turn their ideas into television series.
 
Anwar said:
It was before Star Wars. Jaws actually started this, which makes it funny because guys like Scorcese and Coppola actually supported Spielberg.
Click to expand...
Arguable. Jaws certainly got the ball rolling and may have been an influential piece of cinema, but Star Wars proved it wasn't a fluke but a trend, and in the process changed the shape of cinema to an unparalleled degree.
suarezguy said:
I don't think it's snobbish to regret that netflix, maybe amazon, maybe hulu would be the main distributors of artsy and dramatic films, that the older type of distribution and release die out and people have to spend monthly for a channel to have access, let alone that that whole kind of film should die out and artists should have to instead turn their ideas into television series.
Click to expand...
No the snob part some from the "this isn't real art" type of comments. Failing to recognise streaming services as a ecosystem where their work can survive and even thrive is just them being behind the times. Unless they don't want to take advantage of streaming services because only the big screen is prestigious enough of an exhibition venue for said work, then we actually are back to snobbery.
 
Last edited:
suarezguy said:
There should be but the huge and longstanding success of MCU and other big Disney blockbusters and studio expectations and demands that nearly all their movies should be similarly big does seem to be drastically limiting the release-ability of non-mass market blockbusters and that will very understandably cause drama filmmakers to be more upset.
Click to expand...

Which would be a great reason to be upset with the studios that won't fund cheaper films, not to be upset with audiences for enjoying big movies or other filmmakers for making movies people enjoy.

suarezguy said:
I don't think it's snobbish to regret that netflix, maybe amazon, maybe hulu would be the main distributors of artsy and dramatic films, that the older type of distribution and release die out and people have to spend monthly for a channel to have access, let alone that that whole kind of film should die out and artists should have to instead turn their ideas into television series.
Click to expand...

It is because it's built on the underlying assumption that streaming somehow isn't a good medium for them when it clearly is. Or the assumption that streaming costs will somehow limit the audience, even though cinema costs are *much* higher. Or else just the idea that low budget movies 'deserve' the 'prestige' of a cinematic release more than high budget movies.

If they were only concerned with the preservation of their film style, that would be totally understandable. But attacking other types of movies and undervaluing streaming platforms is just stupid and counterproductive.
 
Yossarianator said:
She'll never get cast in AGE OF INNOCENCE 2 now.



Hate's a strong word, often used defensively to describe simple preference or disagreement. I hate it when they get mixed up in such a way.



Entertainment Weekly mentioned that despite IRISHMAN's star roster of DeNiro, Pacino and Pesci, the studios decided to pass because, wait for it, the final 20 minutes deal with a key character stuck in a wheelchair! The horror of it all. Too much drama as opposed to shooting, they apparently felt. And yet some critics have said it's his best ever. We'll see.

Ever since STATE OF PLAY earned middling box office roughly ten years back, the studios went on record and announced big-budget dramas were no longer a priority for them. (Except maybe during the fall and Christmas.)



I prefer good to great lengthy films instead of 80 minute wastes of space. AVENGERS ENDGAME was three hours...five-point-five if you combine it with the previous year's INFINITY WAR.
Click to expand...

Coppola literally called these movies 'despicable'. Hate isn't a mischaracterization in this case.
 
Yossarianator said:
Ever since STATE OF PLAY earned middling box office roughly ten years back, the studios went on record and announced big-budget dramas were no longer a priority for them. (Except maybe during the fall and Christmas.)
Click to expand...
I hadn't heard that before, but even if that's true, they're stupid to think that considering the original six-episode British series it's based on is brilliant. That should tell you a lot right there.
 
Yeah, Scorsese was already a bit excessive in his dislike, but Coppola took it to just a ridiculous level.
 
it's simple economics. Going to the cinema is expensive. TV is a thing people already pay for. Watching a drama on a modern TV offers little substantive difference in the viewing experience compared to the cinema, ergo: most people won't pay to go see it in the cinema. Add to that the gap in production values between movies and TV has shrunk to the point that in some cases there's barely any difference between them in the audience's eyes, it shouldn't be any wonder why the industry went the way it did.

Calling the movies that learned to thrive in that environment "despicable" just sounds like sour grapes from a bunch of has-beens that spent most of their careers chasing a little gold statue to little avail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top