[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Shoving ping pong balls all over your body before leeping about in front of a green screen,is not acting..scorcese is correct...these films have no depth.

Well, we could just as easily say the same about people sitting around talking in front of a camera... if you ignore the movies themselves and focus on the minutiae of how they are made.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

Cameron and Scott are great, but a league below Scorsese and Spielberg.

What does Scorsese think of Spielberg, though? Because there are actually numerous examples of Spielberg movies that are just as CGI-heavy and plot-light as any Superhero movie (and moreso than a few). Spielberg is huge on spectacle, visuals and action... and I can't think of many (any??) of his films that I'd refer to as "trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences" as their prime objective. For Scorsese, then... is Spielberg "not real cinema"? That would be a pretty bold statement .

[Tony Montana]

Different strokes for different folks. Superhero films have been around for a very long time. To say they're 'not cinema' is ridiculous. There's been several comic book films that have been critically acclaimed.

Marty's probably just jealous that most comic book films can make more money than his entire films combined.

[Tony Montana]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What does Scorsese think of Spielberg, though? Because there are actually numerous examples of Spielberg movies that are just as CGI-heavy and plot-light as any Superhero movie (and moreso than a few). Spielberg is huge on spectacle, visuals and action... and I can't think of many (any??) of his films that I'd refer to as "trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences" as their prime objective. For Scorsese, then... is Spielberg "not real cinema"? That would be a pretty bold statement .

Whatever he thinks of them he'll keep it to himself since they're friends.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

Whatever he thinks of them he'll keep it to himself since they're friends.

Someone should ask him about Ready Player One... a very recent, massively CGI heavy Spielberg action film that salutes dozens of other fun, light-hearted, action and effects heavy movies .

To be fair though I doubt it has anything to do with the money the films make, Scorsese has a 9-figure personal net worth, it's purely misplaced intellectual snobbery.

[Oliver_W]

To be fair most of Spielberg's films at least try to have some "heart" in them.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

What does Scorsese think of Spielberg, though? Because there are actually numerous examples of Spielberg movies that are just as CGI-heavy and plot-light as any Superhero movie (and moreso than a few). Spielberg is huge on spectacle, visuals and action... and I can't think of many (any??) of his films that I'd refer to as "trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences" as their prime objective. For Scorsese, then... is Spielberg "not real cinema"? That would be a pretty bold statement .

I'm sure Scorsese has respect for Spielberg. Although not many other directors do. I know Terry Gillam is always critical of Spielberg.

Spielberg is versatile, he doesn't have his own style like Scorsese. Spielberg will just adapt to whatever script he has. The likes of Kubrick. Scorsese, Hitchcock, Tarantino and I'd say Nolan definitely have their own certain style, recognisable as their work.

But Spielberg definitely does deserve the respect he doesn't always get, he has an impressive catalogue of work himself and was the major player in the blockbuster era.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Alf

I'm sure Scorsese has respect for Spielberg. Although not many other directors do. I know Terry Gillam is always critical of Spielberg.

Spielberg is versatile, he doesn't have his own style like Scorsese. Spielberg will just adapt to whatever script he has. The likes of Kubrick. Scorsese, Hitchcock, Tarantino and I'd say Nolan definitely have their own certain style, recognisable as their work.

But Spielberg definitely does deserve the respect he doesn't always get, he has an impressive catalogue of work himself and was the major player in the blockbuster era.

Spielberg has a certain "flair", if not style. The Brachiosaurus reveal in Jurassic Park, and the rise of the Tripods in War of the Worlds are both pure Spielberg.

[Alf]

Youtube video

[Tom4784]

I've never been a huge fan of Spielberg, I like the films but never so much his direction. I acknowledge his talent but I've always thought he was highly overrated.

[Vanessa]

I prefer Tarantino.

[Oliver_W]

I guess there's a difference between a good director and a good filmmaker.

Take George Lucas - the movie industry has sooo much to thank him for. He's behind the inventions of practically every type of special effects used today, in order to make the Star Wars movies the way he wanted them. Pixar is also an offshoot of ILM, but admittedly he sold it long before Toy Story.

Star Wars and Indianna Jones have likely influenced about half of current filmmakers in one way or another.

He's also tangentially to thank for PhotoShop!

(there's another thing I can't recall offhand)

All this is true. but when it comes to directing a simple dialogue scene ... sheesh!

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

What is his definition of "cinema" though. In my mind "cinema" is exactly these kinds of movies, ones that you don't want to watch at home because the action needs to be on a big screen etc They're entertainment pure and simple. Superhero movies are never going to really be that deep or earth shattering but so what, you need a balance aswell

This really.

There's a room for all types of Movies imo, apart from the deceptive ones that lie about what they are.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Alf

Nearly as much bollox as what you're talking there.

Scorsese is a massive cinema fan. And he most certainly talks more about others work than he does his own.

Listen to him talk about Fellini or Kurasawa or Kubrick or Ford or Hitchcock or Powell and Pressburger or Bergmann or Kazan.

The problem with Scorcsese's comment is that he has made himself come across as a very narrow-minded Movie goer who can only appreciate Psychological Movies, which don't get me wrong things like the first Saw Movie (which nobody gives enough credit for being Psychological) Psycho, and 1984 with John Hurt are all great Psychological or emotional Movies, but not every Movie should be like them imo.

Also I'm not the biggest fan of stories that focus too much on Romances (unless they're comedic) but I'd still call them Cinema, and I'm sure that some of them are good Movies at what they are, I wouldn't just dismiss the genre as "bad" like Scorsese has done with Superhero stuff.

[Ammi]

...’build it and they will come..’...and if they come, then it’s cinema because it becomes part of the beating heart of cinema audiences...it would be interesting to take away all of the Marvel audiences from the box office figures over the years...and see what cinema would be without them...it’s good for cinema though, that he has many people talking about it...

[Ammi]

...I wonder what he thinks of Harry Potter../..Star Wars movies...

[James]

I think the distinction is that it is the Marvel Cinematic Universe he is against, not comic-book or superhero genre. The problem is with the word 'Universe' because that means people will go to see the film just on the basis it is part of the franchise. The film then becomes even less dependent on earning its success through its quality.

I caught up on them because they are part of the zeitgeist now, and I didn't want to miss out. I do think it will become more difficult for the whole world they've built to make any sense, with so many superheros roaming around who can't appear in every film or TV series.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...imed-at-women/

Hes probably right

Seventy percent of IMDb TV show raters are men, according to my analysis, and that results in shows with predominantly female audiences getting screwed

Just a blog really, but makes sense.

Also makes sense that men deliberately sabotage films/shows that are 'aimed' at women. Though its surely pointless to be so spiteful..

Yeah I've noticed that with geek-related stuff, you look at the (online) reaction to Robert Pattinson being cast as Batman... at lot of it was we don't want him because he was in Twilight, ie. for girls.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by James

Yeah I've noticed that with geek-related stuff, you look at the (online) reaction to Robert Pattinson being cast as Batman... at lot of it was we don't want him because he was in Twilight, ie. for girls.

Im not going to pretend that things like this aren't prevalent, they definitely are, but to fair I think the main issue people have with him from Twilight is more that Twilight is awful rather than it being girly. Plus Pattinson is awful IN Twilight and that's the only thing a lot of people know him from (other than maybe his brief appearance in Harry Potter)... So they're judging him based on that role, which was also awful. Because the material was poor and he had nothing to work with. But plenty of people won't necessarily realise that.

We watched the Twilight films fairly recently with our daughter... Honestly if anything they're worse than I remembered. And the first one is the WORST one, the central performances are abysmal and... Well... weird... So the worry isn't unfounded.

[James]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Im not going to pretend that things like this aren't prevalent, they definitely are, but to fair I think the main issue people have with him from Twilight is more that Twilight is awful rather than it being girly. Plus Pattinson is awful IN Twilight and that's the only thing a lot of people know him from (other than maybe his brief appearance in Harry Potter)... So they're judging him based on that role, which was also awful. Because the material was poor and he had nothing to work with. But plenty of people won't necessarily realise that.

We watched the Twilight films fairly recently with our daughter... Honestly if anything they're worse than I remembered. And the first one is the WORST one, the central performances are abysmal and... Well... weird... So the worry isn't unfounded.

I've only seen the first one, but I thought it was alright. It reminded me a bit of Twin Peaks, actually, which is my favourite TV show.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by James

I've only seen the first one, but I thought it was alright. It reminded me a bit of Twin Peaks, actually, which is my favourite TV show.

I felt like both of them spent the entire film looking like they were trying not to be sick .

Although actually, the worst of Twilight saga has to go to the... very... Uncomfortable? relationship between Jacob and the little girl in the final film. They tried valiantly to make it not weird, they even had poor Taylor Lautner insisting endlessly that it's not weird. But it's weird .

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I felt like both of them spent the entire film looking like they were trying not to be sick .

Although actually, the worst of Twilight saga has to go to the... very... Uncomfortable? relationship between Jacob and the little girl in the final film. They tried valiantly to make it not weird, they even had poor Taylor Lautner insisting endlessly that it's not weird. But it's weird .

Was the Paedophile being treated as a protagonist?

That gives off Angel vibes with Buffy.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Was the Paedophile being treated as a protagonist?



That gives off Angel vibes with Buffy.

Edward / Bella is a direct Angel / Buffy rip off and that's weird enough on it's own, but no, I'm talking about Jacob's (the were wolf) BLATANTLY romantic (though they try to frame it otherwise) connection to Bella's daughter... Who is an actual child in the film. I'd say physically aged around 8? And the actual character isn't even 8, she's a baby.

It's a tough sell.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Edward / Bella is a direct Angel / Buffy rip off and that's weird enough on it's own, but no, I'm talking about Jacob's (the were wolf) BLATANTLY romantic (though they try to frame it otherwise) connection to Bella's daughter... Who is an actual child in the film. I'd say physically aged around 8? And the actual character isn't even 8, she's a baby.

It's a tough sell.

I'm glad to have never seen a single Film from that franchise.

[James]

Francis Ford Coppola now.

Coppola backs Scorsese in row over Marvel films
AFP
October 20, 2019

Lyon (AFP) - Francis Ford Coppola jumped into a controversy over the Marvel superhero movies Saturday, not just backing fellow director Martin Scorsese's critique of the films but denouncing them as "despicable".

Earlier this month Scorsese, director of classics such as "Taxi Driver" and "Goodfellas", described the Marvel universe films as more theme parks than cinema, even if they were well made.

His remarks made waves across social media for days, as fans of his work and the Marvel hits such as the Avengers films, argued the merits.

But Coppola, speaking to journalists in the French city of Lyon, where he has just been awarded the Prix Lumiere for his contribution to cinema, backed his fellow Italian-American Scorsese.

"When Martin Scorsese says that the Marvel pictures are not cinema, he's right because we expect to learn something from cinema, we expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration.

"I don't know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again," the 80-year-old filmmaker said.

"Martin was kind when he said it's not cinema. He didn't say it's despicable, which I just say it is."

Coppola also said he was working on his biggest project yet: "Megalopolis", a film about a utopia, a project he has nurtured for two decades.

"I wanted to make a film about a human expression of what really is heaven on earth.

"I would say it's the most ambitious film (I've worked on) -- more than 'Apocalypse Now'. That's the problem," he added.

"Apocalypse Now", his 1979 war epic starring Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando, is notorious for the vast amount of time and money it ate up during production.

"I think it would cost more than 'Apocalypse Now'," said Coppola. "It would be the biggest budget I ever had to work with."

Coppola, the director of the "Godfather" films, joins an illustrious list of film-makers and actors to have received the Prix Lumiere, including Scorsese, Pedro Almodovar and Milos Forman.

https://news.yahoo.com/coppola-backs...173112180.html

[Mystic Mock]

First and foremost Movies are supposed to be entertaining, I think that Coppola fails to understand that not every story has to be an emotional Drama where you gain something out of it as he puts it.

It's people like him why we get an episode like He Said, She Said from Brooklyn Nine-Nine as they don't understand what story they're making and they make a bastardised story.