We always seem to go to this black and white thinking that “real fans” are the people who are only positive about something and anyone who is critical for whatever reason is “toxic” and not qualified to even talk- the fandom is “not for them” because they're the wrong age, gender, ethnicity or whatever ad hominem you choose. or we shut them down with another ad hominem like saying they're sexist, racist, a feminazi, post modernist, leftist, rightest, trumpist etc.

Now FAIR ENOUGH- there ARE people with nasty agendas who hate things because it doesn't fit in with their world view. That's granted and I'm not arguing that.
What I'm saying is that minority of people don't represent the fandom who are genuinely critical.

Being a fan means you care enough about something to BE critical.
If you don't care then you don't care- just shut up and let people have their fandom. XD
-I'm thinking of those people who say “oh it's just a movie” or whatever. OBVIOUSLY is a movie. -_-

“Just a movie.”

A motion picture is a shared creative vision and when put into the public sphere thereby becomes subject to criticism.

You can be a fan and disagree with that vision, or interpretation of a vision whatever the medium.

People should really get out more. Take off their blinders and look at the rest of the world. There are fandoms for everything almost like there's porn of everything. There's even fandom of the porn of everything.

In viewing a work everyone has an opinion. It can be well informed or totally ignorant but many consider their opinion dogma and anyone else's a heresy. It's human nature and reflects belief systems and personality and hangups but everyone is entitled to them.

But as my first sergeant said, it's your right to cry, bitch, moan and complain; but that doesn't mean I have to listen.

Love it, hate it, debate it, dismiss it, but don't force me to agree or for what it's worth, even care. But you're still entitled to your opinion and I'm sure you'll find people to listen but I may not be one of them.

Rather watch old black and white movies than any of the superhero stuff out now. I read the comics but all the CGI just gives me a headache now. How about a car chase without any digital playing around? That's me. And you don't have to listen or care. ;)

bravo1102 wrote:
Rather watch old black and white movies than any of the superhero stuff out now. I read the comics but all the CGI just gives me a headache now. How about a car chase without any digital playing around? That's me. And you don't have to listen or care. ;)

Exactly! There's nothing wrong with an opinion that's not full of praise. It doesn't turn you into a “hater” for CGI or a person who's too over-the-hill to “get” modern films.

That reminds of Scorsese and Coppala who said they don't like the modern superhero films- rather than talking about that, people just piled on abuse, saying that they're both old, out of touch and should shut up.

ozoneocean wrote:

That reminds of Scorsese and Coppala who said they don't like the modern superhero films- rather than talking about that, people just piled on abuse, saying that they're both old, out of touch and should shut up.

They didn‘t say they „don‘t like modern superhero films“. Scorsese said they‘re not cinema and Coppola said they‘re despicable. To me, that sounds exactly like what you describe in your first post above: people who hate things that don‘t fit into their world view.

Also, Bill Sinkievicz made a great comment on this subject: „For me, hearing Scorsese come out and say that stuff, it felt weird. My whole goal as a kid was to get people to respect the medium as much as I did. That’s what I’ve been trying to do for a long time. Hearing the art form denigrated my entire life, I want comics treated as literature, as journalism, as art – and as cinema. I’m not just talking about superhero movies.

With Scorsese and Coppola, I respect their work and opinion. It’s influenced me. Another example… early on in my career, after I started changing my style, I was under the impression that Art Spiegelman , who I know, we’d talk comics and art – I heard through other people that he “despised my work” and thought it “wasn’t comics.” It was illustration or whatever. That always stuck with me, because that’s the last thing I wanted to be. I thought comics could do anything, and I was disappointed that Art was taking it on himself to define what “comics” were. I later found out that wasn’t exactly what he said.

But the point is, it just feels like, you know, no matter who you are, you don’t get to decide what is or isn’t the art form. It’s not for me to say, even if I don’t like a style, to say that’s not comics, or that’s not cinema. It just feels presumptuous. It’s always been a big tent. Comics can do anything. Film can do anything. When you start judging, maybe it’s fear. It’s awareness of mortality.

Stuff is always changing. It’s about the inclusiveness. It fits in somewhere in the continuity. My work is built on guys who came before me. And if my work has influenced other people – and I’m aware it has – they’ll influence the next generation. Scorsese is still pushing those boundaries.

Honestly, my biggest complaint about the Marvel movies is that they replaced that part at the very beginning, where they used to show comic book pages drawn by Jack Kirby and the old artists, with clips from the movies. Forgetting the source material is worse than anything they’ve done with the movies as movies.“

Bill Sinkievicz is usually right, on most things, btw. ;)

Actually it's just an updated version of the old “serious cinema” versus “popcorn movie” debate.

Scorsese knows movies. He's as much a movie historian and critic as he is a movie maker. Coppola should know better considering he started out with Roger Corman and he later made comments to refine the point.

It's that these huge expensive CGI laden popcorn films crowd out everything else. There's no room for Scorsese's The Irishman because of some new franchise installment that is pretty much machine made to a distinct formula. Once upon a time those were low budget and Saturday matinee fodder. Now they're the huge spectacle that steals all attention and money from anything else.

Like if the Godfather came out today would anyone give it the attention feted on an Avengers movie? Boxoffice? It was a hit back in the 1970s, would it even be a blip on the screen of movie goers in 2019? That's what they're talking about.

Anyone here planning on seeing the Irishman ? Or even know what it is?

bravo1102 wrote:
Actually it's just an updated version of the old “serious cinema” versus “popcorn movie” debate. (…)

It's that these huge expensive CGI laden popcorn films crowd out everything else. There's no room for Scorsese's The Irishman because of some new franchise installment that is pretty much machine made to a distinct formula. Once upon a time those were low budget and Saturday matinee fodder. (…) Anyone here planning on seeing the Irishman ? Or even know what it is?

Yep, and that debate is as old as it is tired. There's just no need for accomplished directors like Scorsese to rehash it. And, personally, I'm looking forward to The Irishman. Obviously, Marvel could never make a movie that would be anywhere as good or important as the top 10 Scorsese movies (Coppola is a different story). What bugs me is simply this arrogant attitude. There's a place for Scorsese movies, and there's a place for Marvel movies. I don't count any MCU movie among my all-time favorite movies, but I enjoy them greatly all the same, and seeing “2001” or “Stalker” doesn't make me mad at MCU movies. Weighing one against the other is just a confused notion. For instance, I saw “Parasite” last week. Might be the best film of the year. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy Endgame. But it's just not reasonable to expect a South Korean film, even a Cannes Palme d'Or winner, to receive anywhere as big attention as Endgame. To anyone who's getting mad at Marvel over things like that, I recommend anger management.

Also, ever since Star Wars, “popcorn movies” a/k/a blockbusters have been crowding out the more serious artsy stuff, and before that there had also been enough drivel that made bigger dollars than Bergman or Tarkovsky. If you want to complain about superhero movies, you should complain about Transformers or X-Men: Apocalypse or Batman v Superman (or even Joker, a comic book film pretending to be Scorsese)… stuff that actually warrants specific criticism, instead of superficially slandering an entire genre. From where Scorsese stands, perhaps there are no visible distinctions between superhero movies, but that just speaks against his aesthetic sensibilities; MCU films are much better than the average CGI blockbuster and have overall improved things for the average movie-goer, and even drastically for someone like me who'd always been hoping for solid to good superhero comic book adaptations. I've been watching blockbusters since Jurassic Park, and I've never seen such a consistent string of good popcorn flicks as the MCU movies.