254
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
254 points (95.4% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
24 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
@kingmongoose7877 Of course Scorsese's mastery, knowledge and love of movies is matched by few and surpassed by none. But I do find it amusing that the he criticises lowbrow superhero genre movies when every third film he makes has a bunch of Irish or Italian guys telling each other to fuhgeddaboudit, then shooting each other in the head. (Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not by that much.)
My point? There are bad, mediocre and good superhero movies, just as there are bad, mediocre and good gangster movies. And every so often there are great genre movies, like The Godfather, or - for my money - Logan (which I think deserved Oscar nominations for picture, director, adapted screenplay, actor, supporting actor and supporting actress).
And, basically, you just need a lot of movies to be made before a masterpiece is produced. For how many decades were westerns a popular genre? Were directors complaining about the guns'n'horses theme parks in the 1950s? Most westerns that were made over that time have been forgotten, but the great ones like Shane or Unforgiven live on. In fifty years most superheroes will have been forgotten, but a handful will live on.
To address @chickenwing 's post more directly: I remember reading articles a few years ago about how the age of the movie star was dead (Tom Cruise being cited as one of a few exceptions), and that the age of the franchise/brand (Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar) had arrived. If the age of the franchise is dying, what will rise to take its place?
My hope is that like in the 70's American New Wave the studios panic and start doing weird experimental stuff with young directors. That's where a lot of the big name directors came from today. Back then US directors copied what the French were doing and it got people back in theaters. If I were a director I'd look at South Korean films there has been a ton of great films come out of there in the last 20 years or so.
@chickenwing Interestingly, one of the things I respect the execs behind the MCU for (Feige I suppose, although even those behind some of the very early decisions before the rise of Feige) is that they have a history of hiring relatively "indie" directors.
Starting with Jon Favreau, then Joss Whedon, the Russos, James Gunn, Peyton Reed, Taika Waititi, Ryan Coogler, Cate Shortland, Destin Daniel Cretton and Chloé Zhao and others I'm probably forgetting. These are not the sort of names you would have expected to head $100M-$250M popcorn movies with their prior experience mostly being in smaller budget movies and/or TV work. It would have been an understandable decision to hire directors with a more proven big budget epic track record, a "safe pair of hands" (ala Ron Howard who replaced Lord & Miller on Solo because they were seen to be too quirky for Lucasfilm).
Yes you could argue that Marvel homogenises their styles with a "house" look & feel wrt to cinematography, soundtrack, action scenes etc, but nevertheless, the sensibility these directors is generally infused into even their big budget MCU films. And, I'd argue, that accounts for some of their commercial success.
I wonder if this is possible given the changes in distribution channel over the years. One of the reasons why theatrical releases are dominated by big-budget four-quadrant movies is because smaller, weirder stuff by younger film makers gets released on streaming. Going to the movies is starting to become expensive. Where I live (not in the US) a movie typically costs $20-$30, and premium formats (eg imax or luxurious seating, table service for food & drink etc) can run up to $50 just for the movie ticket. I'm more likely to see a movie that benefits from an enormous screen and enormous sound (ie "theme park rides") at the movies, because I know I can get 90% of the experience of a smaller film at home at a fraction of the cost, and a fraction of the annoyance (given the inconsiderate behaviour of many people who go to see a movie these days).
True. Although, based on the ones I've seen (basically the well known Korean films and TV shows), they're generally pretty full-on wrt violence, language and general tone. Not a bad thing by itself (I like dark and gritty), but this sensibility could limit the mainstream success of a movement inspired by South Korean films.
Speaking of foreign films and superhero franchises - I'd love to see the team behind RRR tackle a Marvel or DC movie.
The age of good writing! Or am I too optimistic?
See, right there that makes me question your ability to discern the difference between gummy bears and filet mignon or, like my post here, pop art and highway billboards. The Godfather and Logan in the same sentence? Really?
@kingmongoose7877 Yup. Really. Objectively in terms of craft The Godfather probably is a bit better (note that I said Logan deserved to be nominated for a bunch of Oscars), but personally of the two I prefer Logan. And yes I put them in the same sentence. Deal with it.
Dealt with, many many times before you came along. And like the others, you will remain with me for as long as it takes to write this reply. I'll keep separating the pearls from the dreck and you keep enjoying movies about muscular men with claws.