[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Awww pity, the "Who would win in a fight" conversations are the best Fingers crossed you get her hooked

I could try "Who would win a fight - Edward Cullen or Hermione?"

... ... ..... ... ... and now I sort of want to know... I mean I want to say Hermione because I recon by the final film she's probably packing some firepower, BUT that stupid sparkly vampire is ridiculously fast so what if he got to her before she could react

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I could try "Who would win a fight - Edward Cullen or Hermione?"

... ... ..... ... ... and now I sort of want to know... I mean I want to say Hermione because I recon by the final film she's probably packing some firepower, BUT that stupid sparkly vampire is ridiculously fast so what if he got to her before she could react

Oh that's a good one, she has the spells but he's got the speed I'm going with Hermione, she'd figure it out

[Parmy]

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.

[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.

[Alf]

Marvel addicts
Marvel Junkies

Until the next fix

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Alf

Marvel addicts
Marvel Junkies

Until the next fix

Better than alcohol and nicotine isn't it? We're all addicts.

[Nicky91]

Scorsese is up there for me with Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Ridley Scott

and to some extent also Quentin Tarantino

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

Scorsese is up there for me with Steven Spielberg, James Cameron and Ridley Scott

and to some extent also Quentin Tarantino

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

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Alf

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

Ridley did some marvelous things though with Alien, setting up that franchise

Cameron put himself on the map with pure class like Titanic, and more recent with Avatar, which he has plenty more sequels of in the next upcoming years, also has built a Avatar forest here in our province flevoland which he himself had opened

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Well, that's his opinion and I respect that. But I disagree. There are plenty of excellent comic book movies. Like Batman for example. That's pure cinema.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

Ridley did some marvelous things though with Alien, setting up that franchise

Cameron put himself on the map with pure class like Titanic, and more recent with Avatar, which he has plenty more sequels of in the next upcoming years, also has built a Avatar forest here in our province flevoland which he himself had opened

Cameron put himself on the map with The Terminator, 13 years before Titanic. He then did Aliens, the sequel to Ridley's Alien, and then Terminator 2. So he was already on the map by the time he did Titanic.

[user104658]

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]

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.

[user104658]

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.

[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.

[Scarlett.]

I wonder if it hurts having an ego that big?

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Dia.

I wonder if it hurts having an ego that big?

Having an ego doesn't hurt at all. So wonder no longer.

[Alf]

Just for clarity.

I've never seen any Avengers movie, I haven't seen Iron man or Logan or most of the others like Hulk, Spiderman or Black Panther. So I could be a big fan, you never know.

The only ones I have seen is the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy.

I am thinking about purchasing The Avengers box set sometime. Maybe I'll ask Father Christmas to bring it for me this year.

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Originally Posted by Alf

Just for clarity.

I've never seen any Avengers movie, I haven't seen Iron man or Logan or most of the others like Hulk, Spiderman or Black Panther. So I could be a big fan, you never know.

The only ones I have seen is the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy.

I am thinking about purchasing The Avengers box set sometime. Maybe I'll ask Father Christmas to bring it for me this year.

I've always liked the Batman movies. My favourite is the one with Jack Nicholson as the joker.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

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

Originally Posted by Alf

I've never seen any Avengers movie

Not interested in your hero worship of Scorsese and discussing his opinion on movies you've never even seen.

We get it, just like Scorsese, it makes you feel better about yourself to think you have superior intellectual tastes.

Take your bollocks to someone else.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Not interested in your hero worship of Scorsese and discussing his opinion on movies you've never even seen.

We get it, just like Scorsese, it makes you feel better about yourself to think you have superior intellectual tastes.

Take your bollocks to someone else.

You told me yesterday that Avengers is rubbish. Scorsese says more or less the same and you're kicking off.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Alf

You told me yesterday that Avengers is rubbish. Scorsese says more or less the same and you're kicking off.

I haven't kicked off about anything.

I thought Endgame was overstuffed and overrated. That's an entirely different point.

You seem to think people are taking issue with Scorsese saying he doesn't enjoy Marvel movies? They're not.

They're taking issue with his penchant for saying anything he doesn't like is not "worthy". There's a difference between saying "I'm not a fan of that genre" and "I'm not a fan of that genre... therefore that genre isn't "true cinema".

[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.

[Oliver_W]

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