Martin Scorsese's Comments On Marvel Movies Prompted Tim Blake Nelson To Do His Research
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 сер 2024
- After reading Martin Scorsese's New York Times article on superhero movies, Tim Blake Nelson took matters into his own hands to dissect exactly how they fit into the role of cinema as a whole.
BUILD is a live interview series like no other-a chance for fans to sit inches away from some of today’s biggest names in entertainment, tech, fashion and business as they share the stories behind their projects and passions. Every conversation yields insights, inspiration and plenty of surprises as moderators and audience members ask questions. It all happens several times a day live and live-streamed on BUILDseries.com.
Follow us:
TWITTER: / buildseriesnyc
FACEBOOK: / buildseriesnyc
INSTAGRAM: / buildseriesnyc
#BUILDseries
#Interview
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Дон ДОН, Алаудинов и СБЕЖАВШИЕ из под Курска ахматовцы 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dEfCf5IK26Q/mqdefault.jpg)
For full schedule, tickets & more videos go to BUILDseries.com
Follow us on social media @BUILDseriesNYC
2 incredibly important aspects to this interview. 1, the interviewee took his time to really think about the question, formulate his answer. 2, the interviewer gave him the time and space to think and really give his thorough response without cutting him off, prompting him or throwing in a funny one liner. No soundbites given or sought. Intelligent discourse.
This is a great point. I was actually frustrated when I first started the vid how long it took him to ask, and how much he was putting into the question. But he gave TBN all the time in the world to answer so it's all good
3. I will never get over Tim Blake Nelson speaking in his real voice. The man is a chameleon.
This interviewer has been excellent in the interviews i've seen him do. Well i've only seen one other interview, but still.
Then when somebody writes a clickbait article about this interview next week, they'll just quote 3 words of it out of context.
This is the reason I subscribe to BUILD series. These interviews are an oasis of actual conversation compared to pretty much all other similar formats. Saw the Daniel Sloss one first, and really liked it. Also in this day an age its good to see an interviewer not have an agenda or actively forcing the questions in a political direction. GG to those involved with the show.
Tim Blake Nelson is a horribly underrated actor.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? FTW
He disappears into his roles so well that I think people don't realize just how many times he has delighted them.
Stole the show in O Brother Where Art Thou
Yup"
Dude probably the most underrated actor working at least since o brother. I've never ever seen him turn a bad performance
Look at the depth of conversations you can have when you're actually diplomatic.
I completely agree. Take the time to calmly debate. That's the way to see each side in a reasonable way. View different aspects with each other to open your mind. So refreshing.
Fantastic point.
Only a coward thinks temperance is fear.
Imagine not actually listening to what Scorsese said or the fact he wrote an entire article explaining himself. Sure whatever helps your argument to keep theme park movies around
Non-sequitur
Buster Scruggs himself
Imight Realperson “we thought you was a Toad.”
@Imight Realperson Well... I'm with you fellers.
Soon Forgot i assume u mean west texas tit
ŇøHă Ģ. Curly joe the gambler. He will gamble never more
@@balkee42 Surly Joe
One of the best character actors of all time.
Of course The Leader knows what he's talking about!
Lol glad somebody remembers. Wish we could have seen him actually become the Leader.
I hope marvel uses him as leader in the mcu movies Man
I was about to say that:)
Too bad his presence has been ignored ever since Feige took charge. Same with Doc Samson and the Abomination.
Still breaks my fucking heart that we've never seen him fulfill that role
@@samuraigundam0079 doc samson
The best take on this debate I've heard yet. And he's great on the Watchmen tv show as well.
Yikes
The show is absolute filth and it desecrated the memory of one of the best graphic novels ever written
@@Jack-rk7jc doesn't change the fact that this show is trash, boomer.
@@MrJole777 Why?
@@lukashepp5157 Because of their nonsense message and wrecking established characters lol.
Much like Ben Kingsley, this guy was cast to play the arch rival of an iconic Marvel hero, but was never given the due he or the character he played deserved. Shame. Tim would've been a fantastic Leader.
Isn’t he still alive in the mcu
@@justinhepler6282 he is but that hulk franchise is dead
He is gonna come back in The Thunderbolts.
Im still holding out for him to come back.
He is awesome as Looking Glass in Watchmen
I loved the last line, "I'm not sure how useful that it."
Because we can argue all day about what makes art, art. But in the end, it isn't going to change the cultural impact of marvel and other superhero movies!
I disagree. I think the conversation has proved incredibly useful. And it’s easy to forget that Scorsese’s comments were an answer to a question he was asked by an interviewer. So this feeling was already in the air. And who better to articulate that dissenting view than Martin Scorsese?
@@BunnyMan456 but defining art will never lead to a clearer picture, it will only create false binaries, and categories that don't actually work in the real world
We clearly recognize what Scorsese is getting at.
We don’t go see Scorsese or Tarantino films w/ the same posture as we do most MCU films.
David Smith lol if you’re still going to see Tarantino films then your perception of what should be considered cinema is definitely skewed
iris care to explain why?
Everyone having this conversation, please go now to a dictionary and look up the definition of cinema.
Note, it does not contain reference to the quality at all of film, it does not address if its good or bad, made with integrity or by committee. Just motion pictures, the art and techniques of, or a place to watch films. That's it.
Tim Blake Nelson, not just a brilliant actor, but a voice of reason. Great, albeit short, bit of interview.
surprised he didn’t mention the fact that he was literally in a Marvel movie lol
Two marvel movies if you count fant4stic
Well the interview begins noting his involvement with the WATCHMEN television series, so it's established right away that he works in the genre.
Alot of actors do it for the paycheck and dont care about it. Chris Eccleston literally said he did Thor 2 "for the money" and then you can go and do more worthwhile stuff for a few years. It's the same reason Stanley tucci is in a transformers film
@@jamesduffy7549 That Chris Eccleston made the best movie of his career "just for a pay check" only speaks poorly of him.
@@mickeye6428 the best work of his career? That speaks more poorly of your film and television knowledge than it does of Eccleston
" we thought you was a toooaaaddd.."
He did get all loved up though.
Them sirens did it lol
Few laughs have gotten so close to killing me as the laughs that scene brought me.
"-what?-"
Eastman D .... DO NOT SEEK THE TREASURE
He is totally right .The only point that I agree with Scorsese is that Marvel films tend to become extremely repetitive when not very creative directors and writers are attached to those projects
What they are failing to address is what fraction of the market is devoted to super hero movies. Upon closer examination, super hero movies are a very small percentage, yet somehow they garner all the attention and are deemed a "virus" by some. There really isn't that many of them every year. I think what they mean to say is that blockbusters get all the attention (and $$$) and there isn't much talk about the smaller movies. Well, I have to say, that these movies are in demand and there is more than enough room for the other films to be made. You can't fault the audiences for not wanting to see their "art house" movies.
I'm of the mind that Superhero movies don't make "Great Cinema" any more than Comic books make "Great Literature"...having said that, I've seen most if not all of the movies (can't keep track of all of them) and I used to be into comics. Every word of your comment is correct and there is room for all. I suspect that the Superhero movie craze was destined to take off. Comics have always been great escapist fodder and given the times it's no surprise that Marvel movies and such have become huge because they are great escapism! It only took time before technology and the demands of Comic action movements were coincided and when they did the sky was the limit. Remember seeing really fake scenes of characters attempting to fly ? Ugh ! But your comment was dead-on.
I, to this date, have never seen a definition of "cinema' to equate it solely to arthouse. What this is is the classic "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy on display in its full glory.
I think scorcese tryn get ppl to see his movie marvel makes movies based on comics scorcese makes movies based on famous/infamous ppl they get ppl to the theater
The reason Scorsese is continually commenting on Superhero and Marvel movies specifically right now and some of his fans (of which i'm one) won't want to hear this. Is nothing more than a cynical tactic to generate publicity and buzz for his Movie the Irishman.
Add in the nice little bonus that shitting on superhero movies is like catnip to the pretentious pseudo-intellectuals that blight the academy.
The entire film industry sucks I agree, but while superhero/block buster films only take up so much of the screens, they do take up much more of the budget.
Look at Warner Bros for example. Just think about how much money was wasted the last several years on huge budget DC movies.
He really sums everything up with that last sentence. Well done my man.
I rarely see Nelson just as himself and having a conversation. I really didnt know what he exactly looks like in normal mode as im so used to see him in some odd exaggerated makeup where he looks way older or odd in some way. And i am not used to hearing him speak without an southern accent also. Lol
"now what could I have possibly done to deserve such aggression?"
Shame we’ll probably never get to see his take on an MCU villain. An 11 year cliffhanger is a bit disheartening...with the exception of Twin Peaks of course.
Colton Smith
hey you never know. Most fans thought we’d never see red skull again but he’s shown up twice since his introduction in the biggest movies.
@@nahomaragaw5047 yeah but Hugo Weaving who made the character for the screen what Red Skull is has only been in MCU film once (Captain America: The First Avenger) so there is that. He didn't do the other Red Skull appearances. So if someone else would do Samuel Stern but not Tim Blake Nelson how would we get what the starter of this thread wants?
Aleksi Suuronen
Wasn’t the issue with red skull that Hugo weaving didn’t want to come back? I’m just saying that marvel could have a use for the character. In that instance, I don’t see why Tom Blake Nelson wouldn’t be interested in coming back.
@@nahomaragaw5047 yeah they could absolutely but using Red Skull as an example to what the starter said doesn't work exactly because Weaving didn't want to come back is what I'm saying. Let's say if people wanted Weaving they didn't get him in those later appearances, if people wanted Blake Nelson (like the starter) and he wouldn't want to come back and MCU would still bring the character back without him (and it would look the same and all without it being him) then people don't get what they want, right? I'm just saying Red Skull is a bad example if people want Tim Blake Nelson's Hulk character Stern.
Aleksi Suuronen
Ah, I get you now. Yea, I suppose that isn’t the best example.
I totally agree with him! Marvel has some shots and scenes that totally qualify as cinema, even though the corporate repetition of it is awful.
Bullshit. They are less repetitive than Scorsese movies. Watch Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy back to back. Then watch Casino and Goodfellas back to back and then you tell me who is repetitive.
I kept waiting for him to mention he was IN a Marvel movie.
I am still waiting for him to return as the Leader.
He was in two he was in Fant4stic as well
@@mrcritical6751 what is fant4stic. Never heard of it
Be thankful of that fact
So bad that the director commented to somebody on Twitter using his movie as an example of failed CBM
As civil a discussion on the topic as I’ve heard so far. And all the better for it.
Very easy to sum all that debate. Cinema & art films = jazz or classical music, gourmet/fine cuisine with flavors all in subtlety, an art form like painting, sculpture, photography. Super hero & theme park movies = pop music, junk/fastfood with a lot of sugar, salt & mega flavors in your face, a product to consume quick and simply forget about it after the experience. Now, none of these are better than the other, it’s all subjective. But it’s a fact that they are definitely not the same thing at all, neither their goals. Different beasts for different audience, that's where people on both sides get confused and all mixed.
I was expecting more given the title. How was he prompted to do research?
I don't know why everyone is so up in arms about Scorcese's comments. He didn't mean any disrespect. He even said that they do have a place in the same interview.
I saw that interview after reading the articles and watching the clickbaity videos that mostly shunned him. My two scents are, they just made a big deal out of a small snippet of an interview.
I wish they would make a distinction super hero comic book based movies and movies that's based on comics. There are many genres and a lot of movies that are based on comics. Road to Perdition, anyone?
I can’t express how much I admire this man as an actor but liking this comment will go some of the way.
Look, I don't get it. Pulp Cinema, Highbrow Cinema, Arthouse Cinema, Pop Cinema, Experimental Cinema, Teen Cinema, Trash Cinema...it's all Cinema. You like it/you don't like it; that's Personal Taste. What kind of world is it when someone like Martin Scorsese feels like they have to jump up and down to make themselves relevant? He's Martin Scorsese, that should be enough for him. If I was him, I wouldn't give a damn what trend is current, I'd make whatever movie I wanted to make; just like he already does, because he's Martin Scorsese. Why complain?
This man should've been The Leader😤
My general take away from this interview is that the film industry could use itself a shave and a brighter disposition and...if they don't mind my aspersions on their associates, a better class of producing buddies.😂😂😂
Interesting. I wonder if the interviewer knows that TBM was in two Marvel films. One of the original two which kicked off Phase 1 as well.
Not just the movie industry, but any industry is always about profit. For as far as I can tell, it has always been that way. Film studios want to produce super-hero movies simply because they are profitable. And the film industry has always been like that, since the very beginning.
He couldn’t have explained it better. Brilliant
What is the purpose of a movie? To move and entertain the audience in a meaningful way. And on that note, many superhero movies fit the bill. I can say this with absolute honesty: I _FELT_ more emotion - sadness, hopelessness, happiness - and felt more connected to "Avengers: Endgame" than to ANY movie by Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola. And I include The Godfather and Apocalypse Now in that. At Endgame, we gasped, we wept, we CHEERED more than in any movie I have ever been to in a theater. It was an *experience,* which is what movies are all about!
Because you are young
@@turtleboy1188 Thank you. I'm 52.
He’s great in Watchmen.
when a cowboy trades his spurs for wings
10 years ago we got a tease for the leader. Still waiting on it
Had to listen to every second and he is right imo
I don't buy this argument.
Because movies like Moonlight still get made with regularity.
Name these movies
Roma
Lady Bird
Phantom Thread
Leave No Trace
Sorry to Bother You
mother!
First Reformed
You Were Never Really Here
The Rider
Call Me By Your Name
Fences
Wind River
Hell or High Water
Star Wars and The Avengers didn't keep these movies from being made.
@Yellow Flash you must be a white man? I am a man.i just asked some youtube nobody a question and, as usual, a white guy comes out of nowhere and makes ASSumptions. Do you people do anything else?
@Yellow Flash oh, and those movies are Oscar bait films. And none of them are successful...but because you are white you will still have a rebuttal. Just wait
@@JustSomeCanadianGuy LOL, Roma never got a theatrical release.
Tim makes a great point on ownership of the properties, but Marvel seemingly has understood that since Winter Soldier; The Russo Brothers on Captain America/post Ultron Avengers, James Gunn on Guardians of the Galaxy, Peyton Reed on Ant Man, Scott Derrickson on Doctor Strange, Taika Waititi on Thor, and Ryan Coogler on Black Panther
Because Marvel put so much faith into these directors, they came out as some of the best in the series as those movies have what Scorsese thinks lacks; ownership
“Logan is cinema.” It’s telling that he had to make reference to the one “comic book movie” that takes place in a somewhat feasible universe to resist Scorsese’s point.
It is telling that he likes to put his BEST example forward first. He didn't say the MCU wasn't cinema, he said Logan is the clearest example of the kind of "cinema" that Scorsese was talking about.
Josiah Ferrell I’m not seeing how what your saying refutes what I’m saying.
@@michaelmcdonald8452 your comment made it sound like you think that superhero movies are not "cinema" based on the fact that the first movie he mentioned was Logan.
The Dark Knight is clearly cinema.
Carlos Martinez Jr I don’t disagree but describe how you qualify it as “clearly” cinema?
Pay attention to a society and its stories told at a particular time. Stories of a society (for us, our highest form of story is the cinema) greatly influence, and are influenced by, its people. What do our stories say about us? Our ethics? Values? Future? Cinema is not just entertsinment. Cinema is stories, and stories are vital to a society.
Dude was in one MCU and said "🤪" then dipped
Lol.
Wonderfully articulated points made by a wonderfully creative actor.
Still waiting for Samuel Sterns, aka the Leader make his comeback in the MCU. We need New Avengers fighting the Masters of Evil (just don't use that name in the film, it's cheesy AF). Leader, Abomination, real Mandarin, Enchantress and Red Skull.
Mandarin's getting his debut as the classic villain next year🤘
(All due respect to Ben kingsley)
Agreed...gotta give the MCU Professor Hulk his own brainy Gamma nemesis.....
People keep appearing, we love Marty, blah, blah, blah... but, you know, Marty is very clever, but... Don't you understand that Mr. Scorsese is saying that Marvel ideology (of production and narrative) is killing Hollywood? So, you love Marty, but that's not the point. The point is: do you love Hollywood? Or do you prefer to live in Marvelwood?
I prefer marvelwood
What a mellifluous warble.
if Scorsese wanted to take down big popcorn cash grabs, the MCU movies were the wrong example to use...
Sam T why?
Poe zik - because they aren’t just mindless special effects cash grabs like _Transformers_ or something, they actually tell real stories with real characters, too.
Justice League, BvS....
J B - those are not MCU movies... but I’d say they at least try to be more than just spectacle.
@@Poezick88 Because they are brilliant, creative, and the most difficult and successful endeavor in the history of the art form. Keeping an ongoing series containing several smaller series that consistently deliver and explore a variety of themes while successfully integrating with each other and the grander theme is easily the greatest artistic achievement in film. It's the Moonshot of cinema.
What is "cinema"?
In terms of "cinema", can anyone explain the differences between a Scorsese movie and a Bergman movie?
What are the differences between the run of the mill movie and a great movie? Which parameter should we use? What parameter does Scorsese use? I suppose that not all parameters can be accessed/used/explored by all directors and, of course, it is the same for viewers.
Just wondering...
I agree with Scorsese.
Not everything is great art.
Just like Joker, Logan was intended to show the MCU how these movies should be. There's emotion in those movies, character development, that Marvel HAD back with the Spiderman trilogy.
That's the great thing about art. It doesn't m6ch matter what the critics think. What matters is whether or not the work can generate enough cash for the artists involved to continue the production of more work.
The origin of theatre is Greek and Roman plays. They would always be about the mythical gods who all had superhero like qualities.
its funny how he mentioned "Logan" and not any of the others made by disney, i wonder why
John Sourvelis cause he doesn’t want to admit how successful they are
@@matt-attack3627 he probably doesnt care about that because success is not the same as quality, which these movies lack severely
Or how he ignored Deadpool entirely.
He's just exemplifying by mentioning Logan. By that, it means very little - if anything - if it's a Disney or Fox movie.
Maurício Rodrigues exactly it’s a MARVEL MOVIE MARVEL CHARACTER
The avengers is not cinema but Logan is totally a different movie
The fact is that today multi-screen cinemas, i.e. multiplexes, have to make the sort money that only blockbusters can pull in, to remain open. They are fundamentally businesses after all. The sorts of movies that Martin Scorsese wants to see on the biggest screens, couldn't generate the sort of revenue the multiplexes need, to say nothing of the studios needing to make the same sort of money to see a return on what they invest in filmmaking.
Art house and independent films are more niche, and don't have as wide appeal as a franchise film. As a result, it is always going to be the big franchise film made for a much wider audience, that takes centre stage and so makes the most money. You will never see a movie like Leave No Trace or Phantom Thread making a billion dollars, because they just don't have the audience to pull in those sorts of numbers.
People like Scorsese may not want to admit it, but cinema has to make money; it is a business. He is an artist working in an industry where it is necessary to make money in order for him to make art. Just consider the fact that for Netflix to provide him US$160 million to make The Irishman, it was necessary for the streaming service to make that money from movies and programs that don't meet his definition of 'cinema'. There would be no cinema if the studios and cinemas put artistic films ahead of all other films, including blockbuster franchise films. Because that would result in the studios and cinemas losing money and going out of business, which would mean the death of cinema.
Well explained. Also, the reasons: streaming and piracy. Too lazy to get off the couch and too cheap to watch it in the theater.
@@maxigol1977 wow that turned bitter. Some people just don't like going to movies. They get annoyed with the audience. I agree on some occasions.
@@davidechavez-valdez6626 That's not entirely accurate. For one thing blockbuster films did not exactly exist in the 1970s. That may be when they started, with Steven Spielberg's Jaws and George Lucas' Star Wars, but the blockbuster phenomenon didn't really take full form until the 1980s, when franchise films really started to take off with the likes of Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Back to the Future, etc. Most of those first blockbusters too, weren't exactly in-depth character studies. They may have fleshed out characters, as do a fair few superhero movies today, but they weren't character studies. In fact, I would argue that movies like Logan or Black Panther are more of a character study than some of the most popular blockbusters of the 1980s.
As to whether or not art house films have wide enough general appeal to justify being shown on the large screens at multiplexes, there is no argument you could make for showing There Will Be Blood, Silence, or Ex Machina, on the large screens ahead of Deadpool, Aquaman, or Doctor Strange. Do you really think that for the average person going to the movies on a Friday night, they would prefer to see Ad Astra rather than Guardians of the Galaxy? It takes more cognitive effort to enjoy an art house film rather than a big blockbuster franchise film, which most people don't want to do when they're winding down from a hard week's work.
By the way, the superhero/comic-book movie trend is not going to burst like a bubble anytime soon. With the likes of Deadpool, Logan, and Joker proving that the genre can take on different, more mature forms but still be successful, we're only going to see more comic-book movies, but way more diversified. Whether it is DC taking an approach that involves less universe building, with a focus more on individual films, or with what Marvel has planned for phase four, which looks set to broaden their movies in new directions, the comic-book genre is not going to end anytime soon. All it takes is a little reinvention and innovation, and we'll be seeing comic-book and other franchise films for a long time yet, especially since that is where the money is at.
@@Ngamotu83 is it sad that what you're saying is completely true? The comic book movie trend won't stop until the fans stop going, and that's not gonna happen any time soon. Disney is most likely gonna make even more bank off of their new streaming service, reason being is Kevin feige stated that "too keep up with the marvel movies you would need to watch the disney plus shows". Kind of pathetic how the fans will dickride them even if they are mostly anti consumer.
@@casualhamburger9607 Why is it sad? That has always been the nature of cinema. The studios have always been making narratively cheap movies for people to enjoy, typically to make money. In fact, even before the rise of studios, movies were being made to display gimmicks and revolutionary visual effects and little else. Filmmaking wasn't an art originally, it was a gimmick. It just so happens that at this current time, comic-books are the genre of choice for studios to display their best visual effects and to make the most money.
"friend, your losing your foldin' money"
This guy was in the 2008 hulk right? The guy scientist that helped make abomination?
‘Ok, I’m with you fellas’ - Delmar
Well I'm voting for yours truly.
Tim is correct about Scorcese's Op-ed being beautifully written . I don't think he dealt with any of Scorcese's actual arguments though. I saw the same thing in a Jon Favraugh interview. Favraugh basically praised Scorcese to the hill as a master but never really dealt with any of Scorcese's arguments about Marvel. Scorcese's whole piece was premised on the idea that Marvel films are more like going to a theme park than what we call traditional cinema. That is just self-evident. And he made the point that the super hero films are not taking risks. This is also self-evident. Scorcese equates risk taking both financial and creative with "cinema". He is correct. It's annoying that a man with real authority like Scorcese can write a rhetorically beautiful article that clearly articulates a self-evident truth, and people can just gloss right over the arguments as if they don't matter. You have to actually engage with what the man actually said. Scorcese's argument stands.
The "risk taking" "artsy" movies will find homes on streaming platforms where they belong. People want spectacle when they pay money to see a film in a theatre, something huge and expensive, filled with explosions and special effects. Movies that need to be seen on the big screen with surround sound and bass that moves your seat. I'm not paying money to go sit in a dark room with 200 people to read sub titles in between the heads of the folks sitting in front of me. These films can be enjoyed at home, sitting on your couch.
Holy shit I love Tim Blake Nelson.
This is almost like a straight conversion argument from is a graphic novel literature or can it be classic lit the watchman is a good example of a great graphic novel being great literature and also the movie being a great movie
He would have been great as The Leader Im hoping for him to get that chance for the She Hulk series
I'm a fan of Scorsese. But he said that Marvel film aren't 'Cinema' while Irishman wasn't released in any cinema (home streaming), but Marvel films did so.... 😅
At 1:58 he mentions Logan, well yeah that's Logan it's on a completely different level from common superhero movies
Logan isn't as good as at least half of the Marvel movies.
@Mark Legend Marty isn't doing that, it's almost like no one is actually listening to what he's saying and is just reading the headlines journalists put out that keep people stupid, oh wait, that's exactly what's happening lmao
Very eloquent and insightful answer
What I would point out on this subject is say what you like about superhero movies they make huge amounts of money that the studios can then use to finance the movies that are more driven by art that don't necessarily have the same box office appeal.
I hope Scorsese wasn't throwing films like The Watchmen and Pan's Labyrinth under the bus. Or even the first Hellboy. Or Joker.
Calling superhero movies “not cinema” is pretentious and incorrect. By definition they are cinema and as much as I personally love indie arthouse style films, comments made by older filmmakers simply show how out of touch they are. Superhero films aren’t eliminating smaller character pieces, those have moved to streaming platforms. It’s the golden age of tv because of it. The reality is those movies tend to “fail” at the box office in today’s movie climate. People typically only come out to the theater for blockbuster style films. Every now and then there are exceptions but smaller films aren’t driving people to the cinema as much. Unless it’s a spectacle most people would rather NETFLIX and chill. 🤷🏻♂️
Netflix is real cinema, that's why scorsese's newest movie is out on it lolol
PEANUT BUTTER!... loved this guy in 'Flypaper', "You can try and bind me, but it'll never hold."
Holy shit.
This is the first time that I've heard Tim Blake speak without a southern accent.
I am sure that the fans of Marvel movies are human and respectful of humanity and intelligence. But it is also clear that a lot of people are trying hard to prove the opposite.
'Super' is a criminally underrated movie, and is definitely art / cinema / whatever they wanna call it.
He was great in The Incredible Hulk..
Just shut up
AzTo Ok boomer..
For real. Would love to see him return as the character they were setting him up to be.
The New Incredible Hulk By Mark Ruffalo Is DISGRACE!
Ross was brought back in a major role and is now setting up Thunderbolts (obviously). Since Nelson seems to actually be waiting to return to the mcu, it would only make sense to bring him in and have The Leader in Thunderbolts. There is so many comments about disappointment he will “never” return. Said who? Feige? Feige specifically stated that they have always been thinking up ways to bring back earlier characters. So, I genuinely think Marvel will do just that, offer him a big role moving forward and Nelson gets a well deserved return. Hopefully vice versa would happen with Tim Roth. They only deserve it. Both Nelson and Roth have never said any negative aspects about working in a marvel role so it can really be assumed they most likely would return in a heartbeat (if the scheduling wouldnt be an issue).
For the TIH fans (myself included)
Blonsky and Sterns best quotes each
“Pissed off and ready for round three”
“I’ve always been more curious than cautious, and that’s served me pretty well.”
So comic book films time just like there was a time of the western & gangster movies. Any film maker saying other wise or down playing it 100% is being a bit hypocritical imo. Go leader.
Legion, Watchmen, Joker ... are all bursting with creativity. There’s also heaps of daring comics out there beyond dc and marvel that are fertile ground for tv/film adaptations.
Benn Eden marvel made creative movies like gotg as well... james Gunn definitely has put his footprint in those movies..
I do not like the Watchmen sequel, but Nelson is brilliant as Looking Glass. By far my favorite part of the series. This guy is so talented
Scorsese should really watch Unbreakable.
Scorsese conveniently ignores his own participation in genre film making his whole career -- the crime/gangster genre. He's right that any genre can become too commercial and function more as a commodity than art, but to focus on superhero films alone just confuses the real issue.
Yeah!! Way to back up Logan! I agree with him quite a bit
Tim Blake Nelson is making an important distinction between Cinema and Cinematic movies. It takes a lot to get people to go to the movies, people won't see much unknown and untested. There are some things people should not miss out on, but those movies are more likely to be overlooked today.
BRAVO! Well said, Tim Blake Nelson!
Martin Scorses and Woody Allen are just making the same movie over and over again, for years. To blame the superhero movie genre for being something like "formulaic" - while you doing the exact same thing (with the same, personal favorite typecast actors) - is just hypocrisy.
Scorsese is just jelly.
There is room for both types of cinema. If one form is more popular then you may have to stretch your abilities to compete.
Nelson's right on, I think. His point about the "artist-by-committee" movement that runs giant blockbuster franchises was well said - where there's too much money at stake (for example, in Marvel or Star Wars) to risk blowing it all on one auteur director's vision, (which was more common back in the '70s).That's exactly why Scorsese doesn't like the committee-based, corporate-tie-in, "let's test audiences to see which version of this film gets the best audience reaction score" world of blockbuster cinema. That said, Disney allowed Rian Johnson to do that very "auteur" thing with The Last Jedi, and it has proven to be more harmful than good for that property, with audiences becoming divided, toy tie-ins failing, and a whole subsequent movie ("Solo") tanking at the box office. It goes to show that for blockbuster franchises, studios shouldn't mess with what their fans love. It's a different animal than, say, auteur filmmaking, unless an auteur is able to establish a reliable box office status (think Christopher Nolan). That said, there are still beautiful shots and emotional moments in some popcorn blockbuster movies (Logan, The Dark Knight, Star Wars, and even some Avengers films). That's why people like going to the movies. Scorsese's point is a good one, but you can have both auteur cinema and popcorn blockbusters. Unfortunately for Scorsese, more people are going to want to see the blockbusters, because they're more accessible and more reliably profitable.
When the movies have actors like Robert downey jr, mark ruffalo, scarlet johannson, tom hiddlestone, don chedle, sam jakson, benedict cumberbatch.. How can those movies not be real cinema.
Good cast doesn't always mean good movie lol. I'll use a lot of food examples here: Mcu is like McDonald's, most people like it, it's popular, it's made for the masses and doesn't need to be high cuisine. It's fanservice without substance, if you think about it this whole superhero extended universe trend in the last decade left nothing in cinema but that. It will not leave anything in the history of cinema, there's no substance or complex art in it, there are no messages or new things, it's pure fanservice. And i love them as much as i love McDonald's, but i can still recognyze it's not good cinema. I think Scorsese went hard on it because everyone loves it and it's the trend of the moment while he always made and loved high cuisine/high cinema that now is underrated because most producers don't take risks "cooking something new and complex" but want to do McDonald's. ( Sorry for my bad english )
I loved RDJ's answer to the same question. "Well, they're in the cinema."
Yes,.......Disney makes sure of that. They own Marvel, and their cinema complex strong arm tactics represent the darker aspects of what Scorcese was talking about.
@Mark Legend How is this delusional? Is what he said wrong?
@@CHewittMedia The ridiculous conspiracy theories you concoct to explain to yourself why good movies are more popular than Scorsese movies is hysterical.
@@saeros9760 He's acting like movie theaters are forced with gangster like tactics to carry movies that make more money than other movies, as if movie theater operators were just dying to give 20 screens to "the Irishman" but were extorted into putting Endgame on them instead. It's retarded.
From Wall Street Journal: "When The Last Jedi came out, Disney demanded 65 percent of ticket revenue from the film and ordered theatres to show the movie "in their largest auditorium for at least four weeks.” If they didn't comply? Disney could take another 5 percent."
WSJ: "Disney is also strong-arming theatres through "block booking," forcing them to show their less popular movies in exchange for access to bigger films -- like Star Wars. An example of this happened recently to Alamo Drafthouse. Sources have told us that Alamo Drafthouse was told if they wanted Fox Searchlight release (and awards contender) JoJo Rabbit, they would have to book October's Maleficent sequel -- a movie audiences, and its own studio, treated with a collective shoulder shrug."
Also, they now own 20th Century Fox, and have subsequently started pulling all classic Fox films from theatre screenings.
He's just embarrassed by losing to someone who went by "Mr. Green" once.
Comic book movies can be cinema. I just watched Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Dark Knight & Logan and those are the best comic book movies ever made. There is a place for all films and besides it`s a business and these movies bring in lots of money.
Artist by committee is an understatement
He's a candle maker in the time of the light bulb. Democracy.
They're movies. They require artistic direction, creation, execution. There unfortunately preventing indie movies from getting made, but they are DEFINITELY cinema.
Spielberg and Cameron went through the same criticism back in the day
Enigmaw Studios even Star Wars did... but look now how much respected the franchise is to most filmmakers... I am not worried about marvel cuz people will appreciate it after some years just like star wars
Well said! i always enjoy this guy's roles!
That crystalizes a major problem I have with Scorsese's perspective. His presumption in his argument is that unless a movie is of a singular vision the only result can be artistic compromise. But in reality compromise is the worst outcome and artistic collaboration is the optimum. And in fact no man is capable of creating cinema or even feature length programming without the creative effort of others. However one man who believes his artistic vision is inviolate can very easily succumb to hubris.
I just saw Tim Blake Nelson in Heavyweights lol hes the guy who brings the camp hope video tape to gerald
What a second, he doesn’t have a southern accent?
So George Lucas & Spielberg didn’t “help define cinema” with their giant cinematic tent pole, special effects driven franchises? Um...yes, they did. Technologically, how they are shot, sound, theatres etc. Dya have any idea how many styles of movie you’d have to throw out, because they don’t fit into Scorsese’s narrow definition of “cinema”? Horror immediately comes to mind. That genre fits in with his “theme park ride” definition. But you can’t talk about cinema history without talking about Dr.Caligari or Nosferatu. Sheeeit, the first on screen cinematic universe, was the Universal Monsters. Porn? Pornographic Films, is that cinema?
It's kind of reductive to lump all horror in the same basket, a film like Happy Death Day can't really be compared to Hereditary (which Scorsese praised). What Spielberg and Lucas did was define the trajectory of the blockbuster, which has indeed become more soapy over the years.
@Darth Yautja What he says is that those superhero movies do not seek to develop the drama of characters other than to serve the larger plot, which isn't entirely true, but when it's done it's more shallow than highly rated "dramas". Then again I'm sure he praises 2001, and that is neither roller coaster, nor is it character drama.
I agree, Scorsese has a very narrow definition of cinema and it's only according to his own personal cinephile tastes. Not everyone wants to watch movies like Taxi Driver, and Goodfellas. You can make an argument saying that these films are more artistic than Marvel films but that still doesn't change the fact of how successful and popular Marvel films are within the cinematic industry. Refuting the genre entirely is extremely arrogant.
That porn mention at the end, completelly unexpected kkkkkk
This is totally not what he said go and listen again angry fanboy!
"Overabundance of comic book movies?" 5-6 of these are made a year amongst hundreds.
Do we really need to say that the number is not meant literally?
Edit: For some reason I read "hundreds of comic book movies" instead of "overabundance of comic book movies". So, my comment is kind of pointless.
Malafakka Actually yes. So many people hang their hat on that one argument. Marvel makes what? 1-3 movies a year?
Over abundance of SUCCESSFUL comic book movies with emotional reasonable that Scorsese can’t relate to , because it doesn’t relate to his thinking .... but is more widely accepted and popular than his “Art house” films.
Malafakka or the need to say that Scorsese is a bit asshurt that his genre isn’t dominant among the mainstream and he should just take the high road and not say anything?
@@SuperOmnicronsj44 than he and I have something in common. I am not very impressed by most of those movies.
Rock'n roll was considered "not real music" when it took over radio and was the hottest new thing in the 50's/ 60's - and the old guard predicted it was a fad that would go away. Hip hop was also considered "not real music" as well. We can see how those predictions turned out.
Its ridiculous to think that it's because of these movies over here, no one's seeing the movies over there. Mass crowds don't pay money to see art house movies whether superhero movies are being made or not.
This is really just turning into old guys trying to piss on everyone's picnic. Marvel movies are too popular - come see my movie instead that mainstream audiences aren't willing to shell out top dollar to see in theaters (they'll wait for Netflix).
King31395 Agreed. The bitterness on Scorcese’s and Coppola’s end is so apparent, yet they have no idea how this generation of superhero movies has been beneficial to them specifically. If Scorcese made The Irishman 20 years ago, it’s runtime would be cut down by the studio. Now that Netflix exists, he can create his full artistic vision, with an equal (if not greater) budget and the same top-notch actors. And since everyone can stream it, they can pay attention to it better as well. Have movie theaters shut out movies like The Irishman recently? Sure. And is this because of the prevalence of superhero movies? Absolutely. But that has resulted in streaming services literally throwing money at people like Scorcese because there is still a market for this type of content. It’s just online as opposed to in the theater.
And since some UA-cam channels (and subreddits) exist solely to discuss movies, it can get tons of high-quality discussion amongst cinephiles and audiences alike. But these channels grew in size, in large part, BECAUSE cinematic universes and superhero movies full of Easter eggs exist. Those movies are designed, in part, to be dissected like that. Arthouse films ride the coattails of those types of movies, and now they get included in part of the discussion. For example, a channel like New Rockstars exists primarily to discuss superhero movies....yet it will also dissect a Tarantino or Scorcese movie as well. Without these big-budget pop-culture-defining superhero movies, the lesser known movies would be getting LESS discussion overall because the internet communities where these discussions occur would be much much smaller.
@@KevinWidesouls why should they be bitter lmao.
But apart from a few leftover shows Marvel is no longer on Netflix🤔
@king31395 because it was Black Music DUDE if it was white noooo problem do your history BRUH.
You can't compare Marvel movies to hip hop. Hip hop was a brand new and exciting genre of music that had evolved organically from the underground. Marvel movies are big budget extravaganzas churned out by huge media conglomerates for maximum profit. A few of them are actually pretty good but, come on, let's get real.
There are the equivalents of Kool G Rap and Public Enemy currently making movies...but they ain't making mainstream, superhero movies.