Marvel Movies and the attacks on them by other actors/directors

[Stout]

Oh, and his new big movie is a NETFLIX movie. Hypocrite much?

 

[Chaplin]

Oh, and his new big movie is a NETFLIX movie. Hypocrite much?

What does Netflix have to do with Marvel movies? You think Netflix as a distribution platform is worse somehow than a traditional studio? Money is money regardless of where it’s coming from. Trying to figure out why Netflix makes him a hypocrite.

 

[Cheesebeef]

This. I think it's reasonable for anyone in the industry to be concerned about cookie cutter type movies and that because of that commercial success it drives studios to take fewer chances. Totally understand that.

However, the reverse is also true. Hollywood and the studios need mainstream movies to drive the industry. Even if you had one movie a year come out from these two and they were Oscar worthy but totally devoid of blockbusters....the industry would die. Movies like theirs cannot drive the industry all on their own. The industry needs variety. It needs to cater to all kinds of taste. It needs mainstream success.

Honestly, they both have earned the right to say what they think. IMO it's extremely narrow thinking and short sited.

honestly, it's extremely short-sited not to see the only movies that are going to made in the near future are going to be Marvel/Star Wars/DC.

what those guys are really arguing is that the industry is LOSING variety.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Oh, and his new big movie is a NETFLIX movie. Hypocrite much?

a) how does this make him a hypocrite?

b) you're kidding right? The reason he had to go to Netflix was because STUDIOS WOULDN'T MAKE HIS MOVIE BECAUSE ALL THEY MAKE ARE COMIC BOOK MOVIES. And it's supposed to be a masterpiece.

I mean, Stout, this is a truly uninformed post you just made.

 

[Covert Rain]

honestly, it's extremely short-sited not to see the only movies that are going to made in the near future are going to be Marvel/Star Wars/DC.

what those guys are really arguing is that the industry is LOSING variety.

That's why I said the reverse is also true. I think we need a variety of films. I honestly think both sides of the argument are pretty short-sited.

 

[Stout]

What does Netflix have to do with Marvel movies? You think Netflix as a distribution platform is worse somehow than a traditional studio? Money is money regardless of where it’s coming from. Trying to figure out why Netflix makes him a hypocrite.

He's whinging about drawing away from the box office, etc, about having less "real" movies in the theater, and he's making Netflix movies.

a) how does this make him a hypocrite?

b) you're kidding right? The reason he had to go to Netflix was because STUDIOS WOULDN'T MAKE HIS MOVIE BECAUSE ALL THEY MAKE ARE COMIC BOOK MOVIES. And it's supposed to be a masterpiece.

I mean, Stout, this is a truly uninformed post you just made.

He HAD to go to Netflix to get a movie made, with that cast? Him? I find it hard to believe. What I find easier to believe is that Netflix threw more money at him.

 

[cardncubfan]

a) how does this make him a hypocrite?

b) you're kidding right? The reason he had to go to Netflix was because STUDIOS WOULDN'T MAKE HIS MOVIE BECAUSE ALL THEY MAKE ARE COMIC BOOK MOVIES. And it's supposed to be a masterpiece.

I mean, Stout, this is a truly uninformed post you just made.

You guys lost me here. What movie & who are you guys talking about? Gunn?

 

[Chaplin]

You guys lost me here. What movie & who are you guys talking about? Gunn?

The Irishman.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

So, was Scorsese only bagging specifically on Marvel movies because he is more of a DC Comics' fan?

How Martin Scorsese Paved the Way for 'Joker'

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/how-martin-scorsese-paved-way-joker-1246355

'The Irishman' helmer initially was involved as a producer on the DC villain blockbuster and may even have eyed it to direct.

Martin Scorsese raised the hackles of Marvel fans when he recently told Empire magazine that the franchise "isn't the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being." But it turns out he saw cinematic potential in the DC Universe.

The Irishman helmer was involved with Joker — which opened in the U.S. to $96 million over Oct. 4-6, an October record — as a producer when the project was first unveiled by Warner Bros. in 2017 with Todd Phillips directing. Although he eventually dropped the credit, his contribution has been a mystery. A source close to Scorsese tells The Hollywood Reporter he originally eyed Joker as a potential directing vehicle before Phillips approached the studio with his own take on the nihilistic villain.

Warners declined comment, while Scorsese's rep says he "had no intention to direct Joker" and only "considered producing."

 

[Cheesebeef]

He's whinging about drawing away from the box office, etc, about having less "real" movies in the theater, and he's making Netflix movies.

Again, he had to go streaming because no studio would MAKE his real movie. We saw the exact same with Alfonso Cuaron last year, who counts Y Tu Mama Tambien, the best Harry Potter Movie (Azkaban), Children Of Men and was coming off directing freaking Gravity, which won a oscar for best director, and made a bajillion dollars and even with ALL that track record of success, guess which studio stepped up to make his next film ROMA?

NONE OF THEM. Which is why he had to go to Netflix too. And then get nominated and win another Oscar.

He HAD to go to Netflix to get a movie made, with that cast?

I'm sorry man, but you just don't know what you're talking about here. First, that cast does NOTHING to get a movie greenlit today, especially a huge sweeping epic that's going to cost 100 million +. Tell me the last time DeNiro or Pacino were even the main stars of a big studio movie? I'll wait.

Him? I find it hard to believe. What I find easier to believe is that Netflix threw more money at him.

Why would I make up something like this? I've followed the development of The Irishman for years and I'm pretty in tuned with not only what's needed to get made at the theatrical level, but television as well from first hand knowledge.

So again, yes. He HAD to go to Netflix. This has been common knowledge for anyone who's followed the development of The Irishman. It's an epic that spans 30 years on screen and had to use FX to de-age everyone in the movie so DeNiro, Pesci and Pacino could believably play over three decades. And no other studio wanted to pony up.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...netflix-backing-irishman-at-nyff-2019-1243910

"During the press conference, Scorsese credited Netflix for finally putting up the money they needed to make the film, which others were unwilling to do.

"We couldn't get the backing, that was key, for years. Ultimately it was Ted Sarandos," Scorsese said of the streamer and the company's chief content officer. "[Lucasfilm's Industrial Light & Magic] had come up with a solution for the de-aging process that wouldn't interfere with Bob and Joe and Al talking to each other with helmets on or tennis balls on their faces. Seriously, I said we're not going to do it. We made tests a few years ago. It's a costly experiment. But Ted and everyone at Netflix said they'd go with it."[/QUOTE]

 

[Stout]

Again, he had to go streaming because no studio would MAKE his real movie. We saw the exact same with Alfonso Cuaron last year, who counts Y Tu Mama Tambien, the best Harry Potter Movie (Azkaban), Children Of Men and was coming off directing freaking Gravity, which won a oscar for best director, and made a bajillion dollars and even with ALL that track record of success, guess which studio stepped up to make his next film ROMA?

NONE OF THEM. Which is why he had to go to Netflix too. And then get nominated and win another Oscar.



I'm sorry man, but you just don't know what you're talking about here. First, that cast does NOTHING to get a movie greenlit today, especially a huge sweeping epic that's going to cost 100 million +. Tell me the last time DeNiro or Pacino were even the main stars of a big studio movie? I'll wait.



Why would I make up something like this? I've followed the development of The Irishman for years and I'm pretty in tuned with not only what's needed to get made at the theatrical level, but television as well from first hand knowledge.

So again, yes. He HAD to go to Netflix. This has been common knowledge for anyone who's followed the development of The Irishman. It's an epic that spans 30 years on screen and had to use FX to de-age everyone in the movie so DeNiro, Pesci and Pacino could believably play over three decades. And no other studio wanted to pony up.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...netflix-backing-irishman-at-nyff-2019-1243910

"During the press conference, Scorsese credited Netflix for finally putting up the money they needed to make the film, which others were unwilling to do.

"We couldn't get the backing, that was key, for years. Ultimately it was Ted Sarandos," Scorsese said of the streamer and the company's chief content officer. "[Lucasfilm's Industrial Light & Magic] had come up with a solution for the de-aging process that wouldn't interfere with Bob and Joe and Al talking to each other with helmets on or tennis balls on their faces. Seriously, I said we're not going to do it. We made tests a few years ago. It's a costly experiment. But Ted and everyone at Netflix said they'd go with it."

[/QUOTE]

Well, I can't do anything but cede the point. You're the industry pro, and you know what you're talking about, so that's that

One thing he should think about is the optics. The general public, who don't usually have access to or aren't industry pros aren't going to see it well.