What started as a filmmaker expressing his opinion on a group of movies has now become a battleground for superhero fans and Scorsese defenders all while missing the point of why he said what he said.
You know, I'd never even heard of this whole Scorsese vs MCU debate, ha! It's silly, like most pseudo-controversies are.
I grew up reading superhero comic books, so I was thrilled when they started making theses films. But over time, I feel like they've lost their edge. Maybe I've just become jaded, but they don't feel so interesting anymore.
I wouldn't go as far as Scorsese though. I mean, I'm sure he considers Nolan's "Iception" as cinema--who wouldn't? Now compare that to the first "Doctor Strange." Sure, the plots are different, but the two have so much in common, technically speaking, that I don't know how anyone could argue with a straight face that one is cinema and the other isn't.
No, I don't think that's the issue. I don't think franchises are either. Every time I worry about franchises taking over, I remind myself that franchises have been around for a long long looong time. Longer than most folks would think. One of the oldest is the Cisco Kid series that had 28 films made between 1914 (!!!) and 1994 (most of them in the 40s). The UK had "Carry on" (31 films, 1958-92) and still has "James Bond." Japan has "Kamen Rider" (95 films since 1971), "Super Sentai" (61 since 1975), and of course "Godzilla" (38 since 1954).
And it's not even complete! The 40s were particularly rich with these long-running franchises: "East Side Kids" (22 films between 1940 and 1945), "Billy the Kid" (6 in only 2 years), or "Crime doctor" (10 films from 1943 to 1949).
So the way I see it, franchises are here to stay because they've ALWAYS been here. It's human nature. We like to reconnect with characters or concepts we enjoyed. It makes sense.
The real issue is not that, and Scorsese should know. And I suspect he does but perhaps had trouble articulating his thoughts (I haven't read his articles yet). The problem has more to do with quality, regardless of genre or franchise. And you see this same problem in non-franchise films too. And not just in films either. Heck, it's easier to spot in music--where a lot of the songs we hear on radio now all sound the same. In part because of auto-tune and in part because of how the songs are produced. It's less obvious in film, but it's a somewhat similar issue--that, to be fair, has always been there, it's just gotten worse.
You know that saying, follow the money? Well that's what producers are doing. It makes sense, of course, on a business level, but when they do that they tend to siphon down to the lowest common denominator. And it's as if with each generation the available range gets narrower and narrower.
Don't get me wrong, we still get great films. But if you look at the average number of classics per year, you'll find that that number dwindles as time passes.
It's a sad state of affair, but it is what it is.
As far as the MCU itself, I think it's a trend that, like every other trend, will eventually fade out. People will get bored. A lot of people already are. Doesn't mean they'll stop watching them, which is why it's still going. So long as those films make money, they'll keep making them.
Which brings me to something else I wanted to address in what you said. You wrote, regarding the MCU: "but now it feels like we’re at a point where that’s the only thing that audiences are willing to see in movie theaters."
It may FEEL that way, but I think it's inaccurate in two ways.
First, I still go watch MCU films even though I'd rather watch other stuff. In part because, well, like I said, I grew up to superheroes, so there's still a bit of a nostalgia feel going on there. Plus I really like some of the characters and stories (Dr. Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc.) and am curious how things will develop. The fact that all those films are connected also makes it difficult to watch one without having watched the others, which kind of froces viewers to see them all. Kind of a genius move from the producers--though they were already doing that in the comics, to an extent, so it makes sense--but it can be grating for viewers after a while. So all this creates a spiralling effect, drawing people in deeper, and turning those films into the hits they are, regardless of how much people actually like or dislike them.
The second point is connected to the first. Because these films are so successful, we get more and more of these, to the detriment of others. But here's the thing. While no one's forcing anyone to go watch these, if that's all you got playing and you want to see something and you don't just outright hate the MCU, chances are you're gonna watch that film. If there had been more choice, perhaps you wouldn't have.
So appearances can be misleading--including the Box Office.
All the Box Office says is how many tickets were sold. It doesn't paint a full picture. Always keep that in mind.
Hollywood executives, sadly, do not. The numbers are all that matter to them.
Interesting article.
You know, I'd never even heard of this whole Scorsese vs MCU debate, ha! It's silly, like most pseudo-controversies are.
I grew up reading superhero comic books, so I was thrilled when they started making theses films. But over time, I feel like they've lost their edge. Maybe I've just become jaded, but they don't feel so interesting anymore.
I wouldn't go as far as Scorsese though. I mean, I'm sure he considers Nolan's "Iception" as cinema--who wouldn't? Now compare that to the first "Doctor Strange." Sure, the plots are different, but the two have so much in common, technically speaking, that I don't know how anyone could argue with a straight face that one is cinema and the other isn't.
No, I don't think that's the issue. I don't think franchises are either. Every time I worry about franchises taking over, I remind myself that franchises have been around for a long long looong time. Longer than most folks would think. One of the oldest is the Cisco Kid series that had 28 films made between 1914 (!!!) and 1994 (most of them in the 40s). The UK had "Carry on" (31 films, 1958-92) and still has "James Bond." Japan has "Kamen Rider" (95 films since 1971), "Super Sentai" (61 since 1975), and of course "Godzilla" (38 since 1954).
There's a fascinating list here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_series
And it's not even complete! The 40s were particularly rich with these long-running franchises: "East Side Kids" (22 films between 1940 and 1945), "Billy the Kid" (6 in only 2 years), or "Crime doctor" (10 films from 1943 to 1949).
So the way I see it, franchises are here to stay because they've ALWAYS been here. It's human nature. We like to reconnect with characters or concepts we enjoyed. It makes sense.
The real issue is not that, and Scorsese should know. And I suspect he does but perhaps had trouble articulating his thoughts (I haven't read his articles yet). The problem has more to do with quality, regardless of genre or franchise. And you see this same problem in non-franchise films too. And not just in films either. Heck, it's easier to spot in music--where a lot of the songs we hear on radio now all sound the same. In part because of auto-tune and in part because of how the songs are produced. It's less obvious in film, but it's a somewhat similar issue--that, to be fair, has always been there, it's just gotten worse.
You know that saying, follow the money? Well that's what producers are doing. It makes sense, of course, on a business level, but when they do that they tend to siphon down to the lowest common denominator. And it's as if with each generation the available range gets narrower and narrower.
Don't get me wrong, we still get great films. But if you look at the average number of classics per year, you'll find that that number dwindles as time passes.
It's a sad state of affair, but it is what it is.
As far as the MCU itself, I think it's a trend that, like every other trend, will eventually fade out. People will get bored. A lot of people already are. Doesn't mean they'll stop watching them, which is why it's still going. So long as those films make money, they'll keep making them.
Which brings me to something else I wanted to address in what you said. You wrote, regarding the MCU: "but now it feels like we’re at a point where that’s the only thing that audiences are willing to see in movie theaters."
It may FEEL that way, but I think it's inaccurate in two ways.
First, I still go watch MCU films even though I'd rather watch other stuff. In part because, well, like I said, I grew up to superheroes, so there's still a bit of a nostalgia feel going on there. Plus I really like some of the characters and stories (Dr. Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, etc.) and am curious how things will develop. The fact that all those films are connected also makes it difficult to watch one without having watched the others, which kind of froces viewers to see them all. Kind of a genius move from the producers--though they were already doing that in the comics, to an extent, so it makes sense--but it can be grating for viewers after a while. So all this creates a spiralling effect, drawing people in deeper, and turning those films into the hits they are, regardless of how much people actually like or dislike them.
The second point is connected to the first. Because these films are so successful, we get more and more of these, to the detriment of others. But here's the thing. While no one's forcing anyone to go watch these, if that's all you got playing and you want to see something and you don't just outright hate the MCU, chances are you're gonna watch that film. If there had been more choice, perhaps you wouldn't have.
So appearances can be misleading--including the Box Office.
All the Box Office says is how many tickets were sold. It doesn't paint a full picture. Always keep that in mind.
Hollywood executives, sadly, do not. The numbers are all that matter to them.
And so here we are.