I believe Comic Book movies may become great films if they were all as good as The Dark Knight.🦇
I know a lot about comic books, especially Marvel, and the movies that have come out based on them with a few changes which at most times are a good thing, so I wouldn't argue that comic book movies are harming movies; rather, I'd say that they are benefiting from them. I believe that filmmakers should emulate what comic book creators are doing with their various comics, which many people hope will be animated and played.
This man is telling the truth. Like it or not, the people of this world have been so blinded by the glory shed by this mega-universal-infinity-I'm-anything complex, that they never take the time to step down from their 'godly' roost and observe the little things of this world that helped them to their pedestal.
Whether any comic fan believes this or not, comics were not made to be movies. Comics were created to be the best of the best and every other fiction sucks. That's why Disney is buying all Marvel properties, "Star Wars", "Avatar", Pixar: the only thing they really care about is getting money. And to do this, they are trying to weed out all other competition, forcing Warner Bros. and Sony to team up with each other and companies when they really never were meant to be teamed up. Without franchises like "Star Wars", "Lord of the Rings" and "Fast and Furious" competing with each other, studios will never get better. People who want to create something other than Spider-Man or Superman will never get the chance to succeed from it because Disney is creating a monopoly. Disney used to support other film studios, but now all it wants is to be the epicenter of entertainment and tell people "You want entertainment? I am entertainment." This is greedy and selfish; and it makes comic fans hypocrites. Comic fans say that you can be whatever you want, but what they really mean is "You can be anything you want... as long as it's Marvel or DC."
And once they have that, then what? -
@J. Van Houten movies are made for the people, if they wantsuper hero movies give them that, its not by mistake that mcu movie reach box office numbers that oscar selected movies coild only dream of. Plus the world is big enough for all genres to exist, its childish of you to think otherwise
I would say that comic book movies are not ruining cinema because many kids get motivated by these movies and they are some of the most entertaining movies that I’ve seen. Although there are many better movies than super hero movies, the movies like Marvels Avengers are some of my favorite and they do a great job with storytelling and the numbers do not lie with Marvel being of the most viewed movie franchise in history. Superhero movies being seen as theme parks is not a bad thing because it brings in a large audience for the movies and the entertainment and action value is much better than some other movies. Superhero movies can be known as “Cinema” because some of them are very complex and detailed movies like Black Panther and Avengers Infinity War with meanings beyond just the story of the heroes saving people. I feel like they are moving more towards being known as cinema because the production level is going up with large budgets but some movies are still at the lower levels. Marvel movies provide detailed characters and complex storylines: “It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves” (Scorsese) says a movie critic who is describing what good movies look like. Even though marvel may not have looked like that in the past it is moving in a direction that is allowing it to look more like his description.
Yeah, I totally agree with him. I used to love going to movies, good or bad. The thrill, a good ride through history, or the ability to take you to another place or time. They made you feel as if you were there, filling you with emotion and forcing you to question how you might react in a given situation. As a writer, it pains me to say Marvel has completely demolished that. Where are the movies like Blood Diamond, Gladiator, Gangs of New York, Fellowship of the Ring? The art of story telling or being a classic to life has been replaced by regurgitated characters, conveniently thoughtless plot lines, and unnecessarily dramatic special effects. Comics were intended to be clips in newspapers at best. They are simplistically structured to cater to those who care only care to be entertained. Movies used to force us to confront difficult situations and impossible decisions, to grapple with the complexity of real life. Now, they can conveniently avoid these under the guise of fantastic superpowers. It has become to easy is it to paint a picture of good and evil, without having to address reality. I’d rather smash my own finger with a hammer rather than put myself through the torture of Avengers, Black Panther, or another Spider-Man. Anyone who is seeking a good story has now moved to TV because they seek the creative genius of good story telling and character development, rather than mindless special effects.
1
@Austin Then don't ever be afraid to share such viewpoints. America is the land of the free and the brave, not the nerds-who-need-to-shut-their-mouths-because-they-don't-know-comics-and-stuff. You are legally and socially allowed to express this.
And as a personal note, PEANUTS (Snoopy, Charlie Brown) was one of the finest comic STRIPS ever made.
@Austin movies are made for the people, if they wantsuper hero movies give them that, its not by mistake that mcu movie reach box office numbers that oscar selected movies coild only dream of. Plus the world is big enough for all genres to exist, its childish of you to think otherwise
@J. Van Houten is the land of free jndeed thats why vomic boocks have the right to exist, likevthem or not, i think is stupid to imply they shouldnt have had the right yo evolve past jornal strips
The world is big enough for all tastes to exist
Martin Scorsese, acclaimed director, called comic-book movies “theme parks” and said that that they were “not cinema.” The reason he said this is because it seems like comic-book movies are using the same formula to reproduce the same movies each year and “are made to satisfy a specific set of demands.” He is afraid that because these comic-book movies are financial dominant that they are going to belittle other potential great movies. I understand where he is coming from, but I disagree. When debating whether comic-book movies are “not cinema,” you must think about what the word cinema means to you. To me, I consider movies as an art form, and I think that every type of movie is considered cinema. The emotional impact that comic-book movies have is another reason that I consider comic-book movies cinema. Cinema can impact you emotionally and sometimes even inspire you, which is what comic-book movies do to some people. Martin Scorsese said that comic-book movies were just reproducing the same movies with the same formula, but the same could be said for old gangster and western movies. James Gunn, director of both Guardians of the Galaxy movies, said that, “Superheroes are simply today’s gangsters/cowboys/outer space adventurers.” Overall, I disagree with Martin Scorsese’s statements about comic-book movies not being real cinema, but I respect his opinion because he’s a critically acclaimed and iconic director that will be remembered in the world of cinema.
1
Comic book movies are not ruining cinema because they get more people to go see the movies because they are especially now very popular. A superhero movie can be either, marvel movies like endgame have a good story and emotional scenes. I think that his childhood was different because he was born during a time that movies were like that and times change. I don't think that marvel is driving out new movies, I have recently watched some very good non marvel movies. Mr.Scorsese's argument does not change my opinion and i will continue to watch marvel movies.
It sounds like a pretentious (insert noun here) critic looking down on what he sees to be a lesser art form. Converting something that has a rich backstory into a medium that can satisfy what can be at times a toxic fandom can not be an easy task. Comics are today what would be Ulysses and Hercules was back in the day. Is that saying adaptations of that mythology are not really cinima? No. The fact that they are based off of comic books does not make them less, if anything it is a testament to the fact that movie makers have finally started listening to the people that they are charging to watch their films. This opinion that comic book movies are any less than any other movie just goes to show how out of touch Hollywood is from who they supposedly make the movies for (Just like the Oscar's).
@Benjami 100% agree
I myself am not an expert on the film industry and what it's going on within this one, but something I am sure of is that comic-book movies are not ruining cinema. Superhero movies haven't only got bigger and more popular, but way better with its stories and characters (mostly giving us great and complex villains such as Killmonger from Black Panther or Thanos especially in infinity war). Movies such as The Joker, The Dark Knight trilogy, Logan, Spider-man into the Spider-Verse are examples of how comic-book movies can create incredible stories and emotionally driven plots that could really leave an impact on the viewer. Something that I do agree with Scorsese is the lack of appreciation for more independent and artistic movies such as the Farewell and Little Women that came out in 2019, but saying that this type of movies are being denigrated by comic-movies and their high popularity seems pretty unfair. I think who is really to blame here is the consumers and the movies they are giving attention to (Which I think is slowly changing seeing the amount of attention movies like the Lighthouse or Parasite are getting.) In conclusion, comic-movies are not ruining the cinema industry in any way, but I think actually helping it to grow in a way.
@Valentina Your comment is great. I love how you listed the different comic books that have turned into great movies. I personally am not all into these types of movies or books. But I have watched Spider Man and some others. Thank you for sharing.
@Valentina
I love watching these types of movies. I do agree that some artistic movies are not given the atention they deserve. I liked how you closed your comment saying "comic-movies are not ruining the cinema industry in any way, but I think actually helping it to grow in a way". I thought that it was a very true statment and I definatly agree with that statement.
@Valentina I totally agree with your comment, I believe its totally unrealistic to say comic movies are taking over, Its not the fact that the specific comic movies are more popular, its whatever people like in general. Just because the movie is based off a comic book does not mean people will like it.
Marvel films are far more diverse than Martin Scorcese's entire career. Marvel films are not about superheroes at all: Ant-Man is a heist movie (should we, then, say that the entire Ocean's Eleven franchise is a theme park and not cinema?), Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 1 and 2 are space operas (should we then consider that Space Odyssey and Interstellar are rubbish?), Thor is Scandinavian fantasy (should we say that Grendel is garbage, and not cinema?), Black Panther is a celebration of Africa and blackness, and so on so forth... Mr. Scorcese's remarks come from a place of generational hypocrisy and decay, they are superficial and dishonest, and not to be taken seriously, but as the ramblings of a stereotypical old white middle class straight man who's angry because his narratives are slowly but steadily being forgotten.
Great cinema is being driven out by amusement parks of films, and while many of them are comic book films, this correlation is not causation. Comic book movies are not driving out great cinema. The problem is with the consumers, not the source material of the film.
There are several comic book films that are true cinema, Joker, The Dark Knight, and Logan. These movies convey the extreme emotion and psychology and are not just CGI infested action adventures. Just as they are cinematic comic books, there are amusement park films with nothing to do with comic books.
The correlation that Scorsese draws is clearly misplaced and has absolutely nothing to do with comic book films, if we eliminate comic book films then the amusement park films will still be there, they will just not be about comic books. The reason that these amusement park films exist is because they make lots and lots of money. We the consumer need to pursue movies that have deeper messages and are truly cinema instead of just dumb fun. The fault does not lay with the genre of film, it lies with us, the people who support films that do nothing and make us feel nothing besides a low buzz of adrenaline.
I think it is valid to say comic book movies are ruining cinema. Superhero movies are ruining cinema because superhero movies are generally pretty similar — shallow action-comedy’s with little to no character development or plot which still manage to make big money in the box office. Superhero movies are often appealing for their intense fight scenes with beautiful cgi, clever comedy, and easily understood plots making the viewing experience feel like an amusement park. This itself is not a bad thing, not all movies need to have deep underlying themes, however the great success of superhero movies is turning cinemas into places dominated by superhero movies and lacking in-depth though provoking films. I still think comic book movies are art, and their are a few comic book movies which are great movies in general, like Black Panther and Joker. I think Scorsese makes a good point with revelations to movie characters. It’s pretty hard to connect with superhero’s, because they are portrayed as people with no flaws most of the time. This is why the comic book movies with the best villains —Black Panther and Joker— are the best superhero movies, the villains are relatable and actions could be justified, however this is lost in most Superhero movies. Overall, Superhero movies are ruining cinema because they encourage the production of shallow action comedy’s which have become over saturated in the current Film industry
American cinema is based off of motion picture. comics are them same so how is the art form of movie making confined when it should be open to literally anything.
Honestly, if anything, I think they are actually helping. Marvel’s 23 movies have greatly impacted the film industry in ways unimaginable and so different than other movies have. They bring a new perspective on life and allow us to be kids again and root for our favorite superheroes in battle. Through these eleven years, Marvel has brought nothing but anticipation and excitement from its movies. Even DC movies have done a great deal for its fans and will continue to give us the best they can.
In the related article, he talks about how he thinks Marvel movies aren't cinema and how they aren't good films. But I highly disagree. The amount of time and effort that the producers and editors spend on making the movies perfect and the characters real is crazy. They have to be very meticulous and make sure every detail is precise and life-like. He says that cinema is supposed to be an “art form”. I think that the MCU is, in and of itself, an art form. Animated characters and laser beams, Hulk and Thanos, space travel and other planets, they all need to be perfect. And I think Marvel directors do just that.
@Nick Ordonez In 2017 they had a gross value of 2.17 billion thats a big turn up at the movies so you get rid of those movies how much are movies gonna still bring in?
In my opinion I think that comic books are helping rather than hurting the movie industry. Marvel has made over $21 billion dollars since 2007 which is incredible. I think its cool that they are like theme parks it makes it more action and still filled with drama, but also with a good story line. Martin Scorcese has made some of the greatest movies of all time and he thinks they don't have the “aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves”, which in his mind makes a movie.
Martin Scorsese, a great movie producer and has made some of the "greatest movies in history". In an interview he was asked a question about the Marvel movies to which he responded that they aren't real cinema. This started an intense debates on all platforms of social media and throughout Hollywood as well.
First off, Martin Scorsese has been successful to say the least in the movie business, making over 1.9 billion combined from all of his movies released throughout the years. That is very impressive and a great amount of money. He is worth 100 million and has made classic movies that are known all over the world.
Now let's talk about Marvel. Marvel has been making movies since 2007 (40 years after Scorsese) and in that time they have made 22.5 billion! Needless to say, that is significantly more than Scorsese's amount of money made in movies,and they had 27 less years than him to do it.
From reading the article and reading some things Scorsese had to say it seems like he is one of those really artsy and deep kind of movie makers whom think that all fun movies are bad. That can't possibly be the case if these movies that are "not cinema" are making over 20 times the money he has made in less than a third of the time.
Acclaimed film writer and director Martin Scorsese wrote an opinion piece claiming that the new Marvel movies, or “comic book movies,” as Scorsese describes them, are not cinema. Scorsese points to how cinema was greatly different when he grew up surrounded by it; it was focused on “revelation” and “complexity.” But because something has changed does not point towards something being less than it was. Cinema has changed, and that is because what we look for in society has changed. While the classics by Alfred Hitchcock are still prevalent in society today, so are these new Marvel movies. It is not up to anyone to determine what is and is not art, or in this case “cinema.” These movies, such as “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” “Avengers: Endgame,” and “Black Panther” evoke strong emotions from the audience and touch on struggles many face in daily life. While Scorsese claims that these new films don’t invoke the same form of excitement and interest as did movies in the past, I disagree. These movies tell the story of people that can easily be connected to today’s society, and being able to see something on a big screen that you personally connect with is an exciting thing.
Scorsese forgets to mention that the films are still highly enjoyable. While the average movie-goer is more likely to choose a big-budget action film such as “Avengers: Engame” over a small budget passion project such as “The Peanut Butter Falcon” to see in theaters, it does not mean that the effort that went into the smaller movie is invalidated, and it does not mean that the bigger movie does not contain any emotionally resonate moments that could also be found in the smaller movie. Scorsese does not give MCU movies like “Guardians Of The Galaxy” (2014), a film that deals with the importance of family and redemption, the credit they deserve. It is almost like Scorsese is implying that the people who make these movies are not real filmmakers. I and many others have grown up with action movies such as the MCU and have felt the same way that Scorsese felt when he was growing up watching “The Killers” (1946), and “Scorpio Rising” (1963). “Guardians Of The Galaxy” taught me that anyone, regardless of biological relation, can be family. Scorsese reminds me of the food critic from “Ratatouille” (2007) who is quick to bash the acclaimed Italian restaurant “Guesteaus”, but only needed to consume the right dish to change his mind. Perhaps Scorsese just needs to consume the right large-scale yet emotionally impactful film for him to change his mind. And while “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” (2014) will never equate to “Taxi Driver” (1976), it can still come pretty close.
Comic-book movies are in no way ruining movies, it’s just one genre that is currently booming. There are multiple types of movies, and the type that the director was describing would probably be considered a snooze-fest if directed my the wrong person. X rated movies exist and they aren’t like other movies, but we don’t think the ruin theaters as a whole. Comic book movies are like coasters because they give a quick thrill and have highs and lows, but that isn’t a bad thing. Lots of movies could be put into that genre. Martin Scorsese said the difference between cinema and comic book movies is that the latter lacks revelation, mystery, and genuine emotional danger. That isn’t always true, he specifically mentions Marvel in that sentence and said at the beginning that he doesn’t watch those types of movies, Marvel excels at mystery and occasionally emotional danger, while DC can do revelation, you need to experience something if you want to talk about it. I would consider comic book movies cinema because, like I said before, it’s only a genre and different one have their highs and lows.
@Jake Bigalke i agree that Marvel does includes some revelation,muster,and genuine emotional danger. However, I will stay on Scorsese side that there were no unexpected plots. “ Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.” There were hardly any surprising aspects about the cómic movies. Most marvel movies that I watch, the protagonist always win-except maybe infinity war. This made the comic movies predictable, but everyone likes it, so they will make more. Other movie makers who wants to make money also started making movies with similar format which destroyed the creativity aspect of it. Beyond that, the more repetitive it is, the more boring and cringe the movie gets. If you go on google and search a movie and its sequel, you will almost always find that the rating for the sequel is worse than the original movie. I also view his comparison for comic movies to theme park differently. When you go to the theme park for the first time, you gonna have a lot of fun. But if you go to a different theme park, but the course of the roller coaster is is similar first one you visited, you’re not gonna have a lot of fun riding it compare to the first time. So in a way, the comic movies does ruins the movie making by destroying the creativity and freshness.
@Jake Bigalke i agree that Marvel does includes some revelation,muster,and genuine emotional danger. However, I will stay on Scorsese side that there were no unexpected plots. “ Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.” There were hardly any surprising aspects about the cómic movies. Most marvel movies that I watch, the protagonist always win-except maybe infinity war. This made the comic movies predictable, but everyone likes it, so they will make more. Other movie makers who wants to make money also tend to start making movies with similar format which destroyed the creativity aspect of moving making. Beyond that, the more repetitive it is, the more boring and cringe the movie gets. If you go on google and search a movie and its sequel, you will almost always find that the rating for the sequel is worse than the original movie. I also view his comparison for comic movies to theme park differently. When you go to the theme park for the first time, you gonna have a lot of fun. But if you go to a different theme park, but the course of the roller coaster is is similar to the first one you visited, you’re not gonna have a lot of fun riding it compare to the first time. So in a way, the comic movies does ruins the movie making by destroying the creativity and freshness.
Comic Book Movies are not ruining film.
Martin Scorsese is a world-renowned director, and his work deserves the acclaim it gets. He should know, though, the tolls of closed-minded critiques. When Scorsese filmed "The Last Temptation of the Christ," some protested the movie and spewed hate towards it without even seeing the film first. James Gunn, the director of "The Guardians of the Galaxy," admitted that he was "saddened" that a favorite director of his would do the same to his films and disregard a movie based solely on its style or genre.
While most comic book movies have at least some artistic merit, perhaps the two with the most passion and ingenuity in recent years are "Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse" and "Joker." Joker actually was made to parallel movies like "Taxi Driver" and "King of Comedy," which are both Scorsese films, so such a blanket criticism would even apply to works that he inspired. As for the first film, to claim that the heartfelt and beautiful story of a kid finding a way to connect with his family, his community, and those across different worlds while navigating a mentally and emotionally exhausting life is nothing more than "theme-park" cinema is to entirely ignore the revelations of that film. The problem with modern cinema is not that films lack these "revelations," but that critics will not openly consider them, instead projecting their own narratives onto the broader movie market. Cinema simply does not belong to a style or genre.
As comic book remakes fill movie theaters and rack up at the box office, those who enjoy more classic literature, such as the author of this article, find the new “super hero wave of movies” uninteresting. It leads them to wonder what happened to the more classic literature and how consumers find joy in watching often times lousy remakes that were foolishly copied from already successful comic books. Unfortunately, the big picture of the article and its argument go way beyond the movie screen. The underlying catch from the article is that American’s are slowly devolving into one dimensional consumers. American citizens are everpresently shifting to lazy, potato chip eating, soda drinking, redbox-rental-watching-while-in-a-recliner-in-their-living-room consumers. Those making the movies are part of a vast majority of citizens: those who just want some money. And if a comic book has already made money, and copying them has already made others money, why wouldn’t they hop on the wagon too. Comic copiers do so to make as much money in the easiest fashion; much like many things in our capitalist, often morally corrupt economy.
I don't think that they are ruining film I just think people really enjoy the action and the adrenaline rush in the movies. People also still really enjoy other types of movies like comedies and things like that so I still think the film community is still open to making a big profit on any type of movie. He states in the article that comic book movies are not for him so not all people enjoy the movies.
I really like the movies, I like the explosions, the plot, and the big fight scenes, but all the movies feel like they have the same idea of a good guy or a bunch of good guys vs a bad guy or a bunch of bad guys. I can see how people can get board with this type of movies and that's why it won't kill film.
Comic book movies are not to blame for cinema's lack of originality. While it is true, their corporations use the same thematic elements and plot points in each of their movies, this is not a trait linked solely to these types of movies. Plenty of themes are being slightly altered or even straight up copied over to satisfy people's need for entertainment. Comic book movies for these people if anything are a lifeline. Comic books themselves give the outline for these movies, the directors merely adjust these to fit their story line and they've got a movie that everyone will love because not only is it entertaining, it's familiar. People don't want to waste money on movies that may or may not ACTUALLY be any good. With originality within the movie industry fading, many of the movies we see playing in theaters are cheap knockoffs, somethings swiftly noted by movie lovers and old timers. Often times I will try to get my dad to go to a movie with me, and the few times we've actually set foot inside the theater, most if not all of these occasions were followed by a rant about the failing movie industry. My dad, who LOVES the first three star wars films(4, 5, and 6) for their cinematic genius, refuses to see any of the new ones calling them fakes, desperate attempts make by a failing company to keep itself afloat. Movie remakes are now are very popular trend. Things like 'live action' Disney movies are truly just a cover for the fact that they have nothing new to give us.
Comic book movies are not ruining cinema, corporations are ruining cinema. Large blockbuster franchises like Star Wars and Marvel movies should be able to coexist with the type of cinema kept alive by Mr Scorsese and others, they are not mutually exclusive. What is bad for cinema is when these Marvel movies are all that is being shown. However, even then, “good,” as Mr Scorsese might refer to it, cinema will not die. For a parallel in the music industry, look at the existence of classical music. Despite this not being the mainstream of the music industry, it is still very much alive and can be enjoyed by tuning into the radio stations playing it or by going out to the symphony concert. The rise in jazz during the 20th century was not the death of classical music, nor has modern, non-classical killed it.
Although I agree with Mr Scorsese that cinema and comic book movies differ in levels of artistry, comic book movies still use the techniques practiced in cinema. Although their’s might be to a lesser extent, they nonetheless still use these techniques.
Mr Scorsese’s argument is in essence the “back in my day, things were better” type deal. We idealize the past; though he mentions greats by Hitchcock and other great directors, he neglects the presence of bad movies in those times as well.
A big explosion. That is what a new comic-book movie is like for me and many other people. Those are what everyone goes to see. Action propels these movies into the mainstream. Once popularity hits, dissenting opinions flow in like a "bloody stream."
Everyone’s definition of “cinema” could be entirely different. Whether you look at the dictionary definition or the words of a favorite director, cinema has been changing over and over for many generations. Westerns, musicals, adventures, and comic-book movies have all defined a generation at one point. Of course, at that time, they were “ruining” cinema too, Scorsese would think. Just because the movie industry is fluctuating doesn’t mean that certain movies aren’t cinema. The reason is because of comic-book movies aren’t the same. The “revelation” Scorsese was talking about, can come in many ways that he just doesn’t understand. You can like a film like Joker which deals with mental health and being left behind. Or maybe you can see something heartwarming in Shazam, a super tale of an orphan who slowly begins to form a family. There are so many different stories in these comic-book films that Scorsese is missing out on. The differences. The nuances. At face value, all of the recent comic-book films could be seen as the same with some new paint thrown over them. However, I see them as unique stories of just another person going through life.
Comic book movies are not ruining cinema, because they were never really cinema to begin with. When people are discussing comic book movies, I feel they fail to realize they are more akin to comics then they are movies. Instead of exploring revelation and the reveal of the paradoxical nature of specific characters that most film protagonists portray (or at least the good ones), superheroes encompass preexisting ideologies that stick to traits that rarely change. What makes them interesting is seeing these ideologies clash with one another, the thrill of seeing two or more very established character traits working off each other gives the audience a rush of excitement similar to a roller coaster ride. That hard to create spectacle is why someone like Mr. Scorsese compared Marvel movies to a theme park, it’s a rare but oddly familiar feeling that anyone can marvel at. I’d say that Endgame is the Disneyland of movies for that very reason, and there is nothing wrong with being compared to Disneyland.
I don’t think comic-book movies are film. Before you crucify me for being a bigoted Marvel-hater, let me explain. It’s like Mr. Scorsese says, in less words: comic-book movies are MOVIES, not film. There lies an important distinction; movies entertain, they give us action, romance, and, occasionally masterful performances worthy of praise, but generally, don’t do much more. Film, on the other hand, resonates. Films seek to tell powerful stories, or some other way of connecting with the viewer on a more visceral level than movies.
That’s not to say the two don’t overlap, occasionally. Take Joker, for example. It tells a story of a man broken by society, and the story resonates with so many for being so plausible. A big part of this is Joaquin Phoenix’s performance. He plays this tragic character so astoundingly well, that with anyone else, it wouldn’t be as good.
Also, the term “film” has also been used to describe classic movies that, if they had been made today, would not be considered film by the current standards. For instance, Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the Austin Powers series are considered films, despite barely meeting any, IF any, of the criteria previously stated.
But, unlike Mr. Scorsese, I don’t think what are considered films are “as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri,” as comic book films can tell powerful and (in Joker’s case, poignant) stories that resonate with many.
@Lucas Kruger I think that I can agree with you and the article, I’m not a Marvel fan and it would be an insult to real fans if I said so. I typically enjoy movies regardless of what it was about but films are different, in my opinion they would be more mature, have to have more meaning towards the plot and have a series of powerful stories that can have an impact on people. Though Marvel has 100% people ( a good or bad one), I’m not sure if it’s the best thing to exemplify a film. I also agree with your comment about the Joker movie, I personally would consider that one to be a film, it deals with the series of what one might be thinking and shows us his background story that builds up to why he is the way he is.
here is good and bad with everything, but I wouldn’t call the fact that other movies are getting overshadowed by comic-book movies their fault. It’s human nature, people are going to advertise what they know will bring in money. It’s more likely to see a big movie like “Endgame” advertised compared to smaller movies. This is because as people we strive to make money. It’s not that smaller movies can’t make money, it’s just easier to trust in brands that you know will make a “good” movie. That’s how it works, get money, buy necessities and other things, go back to work, rinse repeat. While for filmmakers it may be important for them to see their movies on the big screen, for the investors it makes more sense to invest in things everyone knows.
I don't think that comic book movies are ruining cinema, I just think that comic book movies are more interesting than cinema so it is attracting more people. I do think that superhero film is like a "theme park" because it is more exciting. Its not a bad thing to be an exciting movie. I think that an superhero movie can be art because of the movie "Spider-man Into the Spider Verse" is a cartoon which people had to draw. Another one is "The Incredibles 2" is also a cartoon which people had to draw. I would still consider it art even if it is draw online.
Comic Book movies stem from a reality unlike our own; a reality where mystical occurrences can be expected, scientists push the limits of our world, and the forces of light and darkness clash, bringing conflicting meaning to these discoveries. While this conflict can reasonably be seen as childish entertainment meant to stretch the limits of our real world’s technology, one rebuttal which loses its value when put into context is that comic book movies have no gravity. I’m not referring to the zero gravity of space here; some, like Martin Scorsese, have stated that apparently unlike classic movies, “What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk.” (Engle, 13) Characters of The Avengers series, for instance, have lost everything in the blink of an eye. Leaders fall, cities are lost, relationships are destroyed. While the emotional conflict of comic book movies is brilliant, Scorsese’s remark comparing them to a theme park may still have some merit. Action scenes of these movies tend to be simply short thrillers meant to provide visual stimulation on top of another type of conflict, similar to how a theme park provides many short attractions on top of the experience of the park. While Scorsese was quite accurate in a description of basic physical conflict of comic book movies, his ignorance towards their emotional potential was ignorant to their ability to captivate an audience in much the same way his examples of cinema can.
While it is difficult for me to provide an unbiased comment because I quite enjoy comic book movies, I will do my best to keep my opinion neutral. Mr. Scorsese says that that the Marvel movies “are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes”. Yet, in the 50s — when most of the movies that he lists are good examples of the art of cinema were created — there were plenty of other movies that all feature a common theme: a monster is made that tries to hurt people. These monster movies, commonly labeled as B Movies, and featured very little variety in theme or tone. In many ways, they resemble the comic book movies of the modern age — common themes, designed for consumers, and high popularity. I do not believe that comic-book movies are ruining artful cinema, since these types of movies have always, and will always, be around. Rather, I agree with Scorsese's other point that the existence of comic-book movies drowns out the smaller independent cinema, whose artful stories will never spread because of the roaring noise of Iron Man’s thrusters or swoosh of Batman’s cape. That being said, I will continue to watch comic-book movies since I enjoy them, which is why we see movies to begin with, right?
@John Goodman You make a good point on this subject, not something that would have ever thought about. I made a similar point to what you are saying but now that I think about it, these types of movies aren't drowning others out. Rather other types of movies are falling out of fashion and aren't being made as much.
I do not agree with Mr.Scorsese that superhero movies aren’t cinema. To me that is like saying that Pop music isn’t music because it is just what people mainly listen to now. Pop is still music, it is just less traditional than other genres. I think it is the same for marvel and other franchise movies. Like all art forms, movies change over time and I think it is important to accept that.
In the article, Scorsese comments on how when he watched super hero movies there was no audience to screen connection like there was when he saw “Psycho” at a midnight showing when it first came out. I can’t say I know what it was like to see that specific movie in theaters, but when I saw Avengers: Endgame, which is a big franchise film, I could feel the energy of the audience in the room. During the exciting fight scenes, the audience was cheering and during the emotional parts it felt like the whole room was holding its breath together. Another point that Scorsese makes is that these big franchise movies don’t emotionally effect the audience the same way other movies do which is ridiculous to me because my mascara sure was running after Endgame.
My parents still talk about when they saw “Star Wars: A New Hope” for the first time. We wouldn’t have modern cinema without the influence from classics by Hitchcock and other directors and writers like him, however many people wouldn’t have cherished memories without franchise cinema.
@Emily Vogt
I think that you pointed out a really good analogy, comparing pop music to comic book movies was very clever. And I think that analogy stands; just because comic books are the more popular and current movies doesn't mean they aren't cinema.
I remember when I went to see Endgame. The energy in that theater was intense; everyone was on the edge of their seats, crying when a beloved hero died, and cheered when the good guys finally won. I think that action/comic book movies bring out the character in the movie watchers. So I also don't agree with Scorsese.
Simply put...no. Comic book movies are not ruining cinema. While they may draw a lot of attention, it doesn’t ruin everything else. There are still other movies genres that people go out to watch. People go out and watch all different types of movies.
The amount of people that watch movies, is a MASSIVE amount of people. So that means that not everyone has the same tastes. While some people love comic book movies, others may not feel the same way. Some people may prefer to watch war movies. While other may prefer to watch comedies. Then there’s a group that prefers to watch dramas. As you can see, people watch different things. A lot of people may watch comic book movies, but a lot of people still watch different types of movies.
Martin Scorsese himself said, “The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament.” This just goes to show that people have different tastes, and will watch different things.
Scorsese isn’t saying that comic movies are bad, he is just saying that they are different in a way. “The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.” He sees it as though cinema has branched into different types.
Comic book movies are a big hit in the film industry right now. Martin Scorsese seems to think that these movies are not really film but theme parks. I personally agree with his claim, comic book movies are just bringing drawings to life. The story and character arc is already known, everything I go to see a movie to witness is already known. For me comic book movies are a way to see fight scenes of my favorite heroes and that's about it. “cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.
It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form” (Scorsese, 2019, para. 4-5). I agree with what Mr.Scorsese says here, movies are the start of a new story you learn throughout the film not one that has already been told.
Comic book movies are fun and provide entertainment for people who watch them. That’s the point of the cinematic industry - to make movies that provide entertainment for those who watch them, isn’t it? It might not be the only point, but it’s probably the most important. All the classic films that apply to what Scorsee is saying are only classics because they were fun to watch for the people at that time. Comic book movies might not have the relevation in having a completely new storyline because the entire plot is based off of something that already exists, but in the end they’re still fun to watch and the viewers like them. Also, a lot of viewers haven’t read the original comic books so these plot lines are completely new to them. In the end, movies are still movies. Comic book movies are booming right now and that alone should be enough to prove that they are good enough movies with enough intrigue and interesting story elements to make viewers continue to watch them.
As comic book/superhero movies currently dominate the world of cinema, I believe that if fast, special-effects driven films, loose on story or character development, continue to overpopulate movie theaters, cinema, as a whole, is in danger of losing what makes it special. Having said this, I fully agree that there are many comic book/superhero movies of equal worth to many classic, critically acclaimed movies. It would be inaccurate to state that all movies based on comic books are inferior on principle. However, when Scorsese comments about this, he refers specifically to Marvel movies (inferably the movies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe), not comic book movies as a whole. Considering this, I believe it is easier to understand his argument, and his claim that these movies seem, “closer to theme parks,” (Scorsese). This makes the article’s title, “Are Comic-Book Movies Ruining Film?” somewhat inaccurate, and to answer the question that it poses, I would say no. The more appropriate question is, “are bland, special effects driven movies, with boring, cliched characters and overused plots ruining cinema?” And while I don’t necessarily think that all Marvel movies qualify as this, I would say yes.
This is a cool article because I have had a similar talk with my friends about movies like the marvel and other hero movies. To me movies like this are good movies but no what i want to go and see one because I don't like them and two it's a “theme park”.
Comic book movies are very hard to say it's bad because it for some people and the message can be really good and nice to here. It could change your life and make you want to go out and do good things for people like a hero. But it's not like other movies and before reading this I didnt know how to chatrize it but now I know it's a theme park movie and that makes sense.
This article really opened my eyes to the world of thoughts and critics view on movies and think it interesting to read. I also don't think that this kind of movies it running the film industry but its next to it, it's it own thing.
I certainly do not think comic book movies are ruining film. When I hear “comic book movies”, I think of Captain America, Batman, The Hulk. Movies like those. And when I watch them, in home or at the theater, I think they add excellent things to the cinematic world. When Avengers: Endgame came out, I cried more than I’ve ever cried during any other show or movie. I think comic book movies are just as valid as any other well-directed film. Mr. Scorsese says there are two seperate fields: worldwide autovisual entertainment and cinema. I think all films fall under cinema, theres just bad cinemna and good cinema. But even comic book movies should count as cinema.
@lucy z
I don't think that you are right there are good and bad cinema but comic book movies and not in cinema catgorie.
it's not the same its close to movies like midway we're its about fighting and heroes but it's different because its super heroes. This is why its in the worldwide auto-visual entertainment.
I do agree that the comic book movies are running the industry but its taking up some spot light from other movies. Like when "Avengers: Endgame" came out its shut out every other movie that was out at the time. this is why I also don't think it should be a cinema movie the super hero moves block out other movies. this hurt business and all the work the other people put into the movies just for no one to ever here of it.
I for one, love movies and just the thought of a new marvel movie sends people subconsciously running to the theater. Cinematic movies have had their time, as I feel with the coming of 2020, comic book movies are going to get even better. Comic book movies have usually a whole lot of action, but they also have calm and dramatic moments. It's fine to share Mr. Scorsee's thoughts about these movies but if you prefer less action and excitement, movies like the ones in the marvel universe are probably not for you. But not enjoying for example, the Marvel universe, does not mean comic book movies are not ruining cinema, Mr. Scorsee probably grew up in a time where cinematic movies dominated, so he cannot undersand how substantial comic book movies are for kids growing up in and around 2019. The fact is, lots of "comic book" movies are just like cinema themselves, and they are making cinema better in my opinion.
@Elliot C
I agree with your comment. Comic book movies are new to our generation and are more popular than ever before. Sure, There were few movies that were out when the last generation was growing up, but the popularity has increased since then. Comic book movies are not all action and cheesy superheroes, but they tell a story. They show how the main character got over an issue and how. They depict acts of love, grief, and adventure as all great movies do.
I don’t feel like comic-book movies are ruining cinema, I think they’re making it better. They make the entire action genre pop! I think they can sometimes feel like a theme park with, like, DC movies. But if you’re looking at Marvel movies, they have a plot that could make a great film, then add on the action and explosions and superhero aspects. And I think that in itself is a great new kind of cinema. In the 40’s they really didn’t have the amazing technology that it takes to make a good action movie. The films Mr. Scorsese grew up with were mostly romance and war stories. So his sense of film is way different from the children who grew up in later decades, like the ones who grew up with Marvel. And different people have different taste, so he should be able to understand that not everyone wants to watch Casablanca and Pinnochio all the time.
Comic-book movies are in no way, not cinema, it is just one genre that currently people are interested in. There are some rated movies that you have to be over 18 to get in and they are obviously not like other movies, but just because not all audiences can see them, does not make them bad movies. Comic book movies are like roller coasters because they give people thrills throughout the entirety of the movie and have interesting parts and not so interesting parts, but that is not a bad thing. Lots of movies could be put into that genre because most movies have them. Most movies that I am interested in watching are movies that have thrills. Martin Scorsese said the difference between cinema and comic book movies is that comic book movies lack revelation, mystery, and genuine emotional danger. I disagree with that statement because a lot of comic book movies including Captain America, The First Avenger does include a lot of emotional danger. Just because a movie might not check all of those boxes, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not cinema, it just means they have different features that more traditional features include and that is not a bad thing. If all movies always checked all of the boxes, people would not be as interested in going to the movies anymore because it always would be the same thing. filmmakers who have less publicity than say Disney is not that bad because when people are looking for a different genre of movies than they will be there.
@Ryan Altschuler I agree with you, I think that although comic books don't contain the life lesson and plot that comic book movies do, that doesn't make them any less of a movie. I view them as a way to see a book or comic come to life, and that is exactly what comic book movies do. Thousands of books have been made into movies, so does that make them less of a movie just because it isn't unexpected? Also, diversity of movie genres is part of what brings in the revenue. Nobody would go to the movies if every single one was perfect, because they would all be the same. I think Mr. Scorsese is wrong in his statement that "nothing is at risk." The movies are made for people who like comic books, and they like them for a reason. Comics contain mystery, suspense, detailed character development with detailed backstories. So yes, they are movies, and no, they aren't "sequels in name and remakes in spirit."
I think that Mr. Scorsese is wrong. Just because Marvel or DC movies originated from a comic book doesn mean that they are bad. Sure, they may be, but it seems that Scorsese is being a little biased. Sure, since Marvel or DC are such big names, they may cover up smaller titles, but Marvel or DC deserves it. They spend a year at least, developing an entertaining and original plot and then film and edit it. I think that takes serious skill, and that's how they cover up the smaller titles, because they are making good movies. I think Scorosese is wrong. I'm not intent on characterizing his words, but there’s still nothing I can do to stand in my way.
P.S. If you like Star Wars I’ll respect you again, because Star Wars is better than Marvel or DC
Well, a lot of people love Walt Disney movies, right? All of the stories are inspired by books and stories. Just like comic book movies, they all share a same ground line. Inspiration. So I don't think comic book movies are ruining cinema, some people like them a some people don't. It's hard to judge something subjective and say it's "ruining" cinema, because that's just an opinion. And this, is just my opinion.
Mr. Scorsese’s argument does not make me want to stop watching comic-book based movies. I’m sorry, but it’s not Marvel’s fault they have such good screenwriters and directors. It’s also not their fault they have good actors such as Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans. And maybe I will check out some of the movies he discussed, because I’m someone who will watch any movie whether or not people think it shouldn’t be counted as cinema. As someone who has been watching Marvel for as long as I can remember, I will sit down and watch one any time. At the end of the day, I’ll watch a movie that I enjoy even if others don’t think it’s worthy of being called a movie.
1
The intriguing worlds of comic-based movies is taking the world by storm. Especially companies like Marvel has a wide audience on the edge of their seats waiting for the next story in the trilogy. Companies such as Marvel have masterfully used the arts of imagination and suspense to hook audiences on every adventure that deepens their universe. Are they ruining film though? Are they stealing attention and fame from others who have done their part in creating abstract films? I would say that they are not. There have always been many branches off of the umbrella term of film: horror, comedy, science fiction, documentaries, and so many more. Movies based on comics have further advanced the popularity of action movies in society. They further represent pop culture in this generation. For example, in the most recent generation, the wondrous world of Harry Potter rose in popularity until it ultimately became a big enough icon that could have represented the decade. Comic-book movies are becoming the same iconic status of Harry Potter, and they are coming to define the decade.
@Taylor Posey I agree with you. I think what you're saying is definitely worth listening to. I think that Marvel isn't really doing anything wrong, and they are defining the decade. I can't find a place where I disagree with you.
@Taylor Posey I disagree with you on this stance. As a big fan of Scorcese's works, my opinion might be biased, but I agree with him on the fact that comic movies are "theme park". I believe a good representation of cinema would be his most recent film, The Irishman. The acting was terrific, the historical anecdotes tied in well with the dramatized parts of the film, and although it was quite lengthy, the character development kept mew quite entertained.
That is what good cinema is. Good cinema has a theme deeper than what you can see from the first watch. Good cinema has things that you may not see the first time, but pick up on the second, third, or even fifth watch. Good cinema is an experience, and teaches lessons about life. Marvel and DC movies do not do that. They have a common story line, some action scenes, and normally a focus on the superhero and a significant other. These movies are usually all the same in my opinion.
Movies like "Goodfellas" and "Casino" have historical education and many, many life lessons. "Iron Man" or "Spider Man: Far From Home" do not do that. And while they may be popular, they are not a good representation of cinema, which is exactly what Mr. Scorcese is saying.
Movies based on superhero’s and comics pose no genuine danger or realistic emotion within their plot. Perhaps that’s the exact reason they resonate so well with Young adults? The movies lack concepts that give people the ability to correlate films to real life, in turn this sparks disassociation from the genuine art of film. Comic book movies definitely change the definition of film, yet to me the lack of depth cannot be seen as beneficial to the film industry.
@Nuha S. Even the most basbasic film has real emotions within, take into thd spiderverse for example
@Nuha S. Even he most basic movie has realistic emotions in them, take into the spiderverse.
The difference is they dont post said values right in front of you as if you were dumb like most oscar nominated movies do, wich are a second away of posting said values in the title lol
Movies are made for the people, thus they clearly have choosen mcu and other blockbuster movies over the melodramatic films that are nominated at the oscars everytime, that goes for scorseses army of mafia crime dramas, with no offense to your "god" scorsese.
Maybe to generations above us, comic-book movies and superheroes are not considered “cinema”. However, to the younger generations, these are the movies we’ve grown up with, the movies that we wait years in anticipation until the next one comes out. I can see how someone might compare superhero films to be more like “theme parks”-since most themed after superheroes-but that does not mean it is a bad thing. There are Star Wars themed places, but does that make Star Wars “not cinema”? No, it doesn’t. Mr. Scorsese mentions how the movies from his age are nothing like the Marvel universe, but do we really want all movies to be the same? Again, the answer is no. Everyone has different genres that they prefer, and a wide variety of movies allows them all to have their favorites. I love Marvel movies, but they aren’t the only thing I watch. I watch old movies with my family and my grandparents, and just because I like those it does not mean that I do not like all the superhero action movies currently coming out. So no, Mr. Scorsese’s argument does not make me less likely to see the next comic-book movie, but it does make me want to explore some other kinds of movies to get a better understanding of the differences.
I don’t watch classic cinema or comic-book movies, so this is just going off of what I know and I may be wrong on some things. I agree with Mr. Scorsese’s opinions, yet I think he is a little bit harsh when talking about comic-book movies. He mentions how comic-book movies differ immensely from cinema. I agree with him on this point because I think that classic cinema can be generalized as movies that have a deeper meaning, show original trains of thought, and as he says, have revelation. Whereas comic movies in cinema are based on preexisting thoughts and don’t really try to have any new groundbreaking messages or meanings, they’re more of adventure stories. This isn’t to say that they’re any less artistically brilliant or well conveyed, but the two categories are just so different from each other. They’re made for different kinds of people and they differ immensely, so there’s not really a way to properly compare them.
As films become easier and easier to make and as they become more and more profitable, it seems inevitable that tried and tested formulaic movies will make themselves more and more prevalent on the big screen. Especially with the film-making giants behind our favorite movies of today, there is no wonder why there is concern over movie-making as an art-form.
Large corporations are more inclined to turning a profit, so who wouldn’t want to make safe, consistent money? Almost all films made by large entities are green-lit, overseen, and influenced by higher-ups in order to get the largest return for the lowest risk. This kind of meddling has made it so movies can change directors mid-production and still churn out a product. Oftentimes, changes to the film made by executives override the visions of directors, which can attribute to disasters like the film Suicide Squad.
In the article Martin Scorsese states as such, that franchise films produced by large entities like Marvel or DC lack the risk and artistic creativity than those made by individual artists, instead producing the same movies each year. But Scorsese also does the same thing; after all, isn’t “The Irishman” just another gangster film made by him? While that is true, The Irishman probably wouldn’t have been nearly the same movie without Scorsese.
I do still enjoy watching superhero movies and the like, they are exciting and beautiful to watch, but seldom do they leave a lasting impact on me for very long.
@Jack Huo This article is very difficult to respond to, quite frankly. I worked for an extended period of time, and could not, for the life of me, figure out how to express all of my feelings here in a concise manner, but you have just about summed them up. I would like to point out, though, that there are a number of stellar superhero movies. Look at Logan, look at The Dark Knight, look at Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse.
Scorsese's main point, I feel, was that superhero movies lack artistic depth, and to that I respond: "You're looking in the wrong place". I feel like some superhero movies, much like some children's movies, compare to movies outside of the genre in quality, and I believe that it is unfair to count them out with no reason behind it.
@Jacob Jarrett
Thanks for the reply. I have indeed seen The Dark Knight and Into the Spider-verse, and in my opinion they are much better as movies than many of the other superhero action movies I've seen.
And you may be right that Scorsese is looking in the wrong place to assess artistic quality. It's kind of like comparing a comic book to a classic novel; they are different genres. But at the same time, Scorsese is also concerned with something else, and that is public perception. If the general public perceives blockbuster movies as THE movies to see in theaters, then that leaves the more niche artistic movies with a much smaller audience and outreach doesn't it?
Jealousy and bias might be involved, too. I'm willing to bet Scorsese wished his films had anywhere close to the same widespread attention and pop culture impact that the Avengers movies had. And I do think Scorsese believes that filmmakers who poured their blood, sweat, and tears into something they wanted to create aren't getting the credit they deserve, which includes himself.
Comic book movies do well in theatre because they’re attention grabbing, appreciable for all ages, and can be as meaningful as the spectator wants it to be. If there weren’t big-budget comic book movies, there’d be something else to fill it’s spot to keep the mass population entertained. The riddance of highly produced comic book films would not create an open space for cinema to become box-office breakers, because in order for the films to appeal to the largest audience possible, they’ll need to be market-researched, audience-tested, ect. Like Martin Scorsese describes.
Despite it being a little disheartening that “real” cinema won’t get the break it deserves, I believe that it’s how cinema should stay. Cinema doesn’t produce box-office hits because it’s not meant to be for everyone, unlike Marvel Comic movies which almost everyone can enjoy. Cinema’s an art, and it’s meant to be personal and speak to you. What’s truly “ruining” cinema are those who try to use cinema to capitalize on the viewing public.
@Sydney Pugh I agree when you say that the movies do so well because of multiple demographics they extend to. These movies make millions just on the name that they have, no matter the content that they may possess. These movies are good at keeping the general public happy and I agree with you that they should stay in the cinema.
Comic-book movies are in no way ruining movies, it’s just one genre that is currently booming. There are multiple types of movies, and the type that the director was describing would probably be considered a snooze-fest if directed my the wrong person. X rated movies exist and they aren’t like other movies, but we don’t think the ruin theaters as a whole. Comic book movies are like coasters because they give a quick thrill and have highs and lows, but that isn’t a bad thing. Lots of movies could be put into that genre. Martin Scorsese said the difference between cinema and comic book movies is that the latter lacks revelation, mystery, and genuine emotional danger. That isn’t always true, he specifically mentions Marvel in that sentence and said at the beginning that he doesn’t watch those types of movies, Marvel excels at mystery and occasionally emotional danger, while DC can do revelation, you need to experience something if you want to talk about it. I would consider comic book movies cinema because, like I said before, it’s only a genre and different one have their highs and lows.
Upon reading Scorsese’s argument, I agree that comic books movies are ruining cinema. The idea of comic book films having no risk is something I’ve always believed ever since I was elementary school. There is no “edge of my seat” feeling when watching these films because they all follow the same formula, in turn leading to predictable endings and very similar stories with different names. A parallel to this idea of having the same formula is the Power Ranger TV series. If you’ve ever watched it, you’ll notice the same pattern of the Power Rangers battling you’re stereotypical super villain and losing. They then come back for a rematch within the last few minutes of the episode to defeat the super villain using the power of friendship and teamwork, which is why I find comic book films very boring and are ruining cinema.
As with any form of art, cinema is meant to be diverse, with each film a unique experience. This is becoming less and less true as large-budget studios continue to churn out similar movies each year. Superhero movies are a safe way for studios to make a quick buck, and as they continue to produce them, they will continue to crack down on the formula that makes them the most money. After this cycle goes on for a while, cinema will become completely homogenized and monotonous. Directors, actors, and script writers who have a true passion for the art of cinema will have their work brushed aside by studios in favor of making another version of the same superhero movie. The artistic integrity of cinema is put at risk due to superhero movies - why would studios take any risks when they could make another dollar instead?
I don't think that comic book movies are necessarily "ruining cinema" but I do believe that Scorsese has a fair point, and in some ways comic book films are damaging the integrity of film. The rise of comic book film has been meteoric and is a large facet in a creativity issue plaguing cinema. As movies like these keep making money, studios keep making more and more following the same formula. While this doesn't seem like a huge problem to many, the proliferation of these movies is taking away from other films that are unique stories and are unafraid to step outside of the traditional boundaries of film. Movies like these action packed superhero films while not objectively bad or ruining film, in their abundance, are taking away from other more original films being made.
Comic books aren’t ruining cinema. We live in a time of such diversity and wide ranges of thinking and ideas that not everyone appreciates the same types of movies. Older generations don’t find the same appeal of comic book movies as younger generations do, and the infatuation continues as the years pass.
In the New York Times article “Why Are We Obsessed with Superhero Movies?” from 2018, Mark Bowden describes many reasons we have a global obsession with comic book movies. They can be used as “mental popcorn”, in which we eat quickly and enjoy, then never come back to, as they are “harmless.” Some people like the movies for the “beautiful bodies,” “well-choreographed combat,” and “dazzling special effects.”
I think Bowden is missing an important reason, one that Scorcese doesn’t recognize either, that applies more specifically to the young generation, my generation; we live in societies and on a planet that has been wrecked by those before us and we are scared. My generation is scared of the world left for us and for our futures, so we look to role-models that define power and change, that can be a light to help save the world. We look to them for hope because, sometimes, we have none of our own.
In the words of Scorcese, comic-books are like “theme parks”. He thinks that they ruin cinema because they have obvious flaws in plot and do not develop characters enough. In my opinion, Comic book movies are not ruining cinema. They may not have the emotional depth and character development of the best pieces of cinema, but they are fun and that is not a bad thing. They add a different kind of variety to cinema— not every movie needs to be a well-crafted character study with perfect development, plot, and script. Although those types of movie are enjoyable for me, comic book movies are also enjoyable. There are still comic-book movies that I dislike, but that does not mean that they are destroying cinema.