(Read the article here if you're blocked by the paywall.)
Martin Scorsese wrote:That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.
And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.
Netflix wanted this in many theaters, the big theater chains told them no because of the fixed release window. Which I still find weird because many films don't screen very long either.
they would screen it until it stops making money. movies like this don't make their money in the first week - it would be like disney giving theaters a Marvel movie for 4 weeks and then saying, nope that's it.
netflix wants the best of both worlds, and i don't understand why they can't do what amazon (successfully, i might add) does, and have a standard theatrical window before streaming. oh, wait.. it's because netflix doesn't actually give a fuck about theaters and does this to save face
Not even Amazon is doing it anymore though.And you say 'successfully', The Big Sick was basically their only such success, everything else has been for building image and the impression of them you're exactly expressing, and they lost money. They're now only doing traditional theatrical windows if they're contractually obligated, as they are on Late Night and Honey Boy.
Day and date films in the cinema and online is the future for non-tentpole films that don't get wide release runs from weekend 1. And frankly for most indie films, cinemas , particularly multiplexes, do mostly kick them out after one week. While going, can't have it anywhere else for.the other 15.
And ultimately for both Netflix and Amazon it comes down to subscriber access.
For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, 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.
Only if you had actually seen some of the good Marvel films Marty.
The truth is Scorsese has been one of the privileged ones. He's had $100M for Gangs of New York or The Aviator and we are talking about early 2000s when you you could make Star Wars, LotR or Potter movies with that kind of money.
And he's had $170M for Hugo and these films all flopped. Silence also flopped with $50M budget.
If he had a more consistent track record, studios would have continued to spend money on his films the way they do it for Nolan. Now they only do it if he's bringing along DiCaprio.
Is it really too unreasonable that people don't want to risk their money? That they wouldn't want to bet on a film about old gangsters clearing $600M at the box office?
For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, 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.
Only if you had actually seen some of the good Marvel films Marty.
If he didn't like the handful of the Marvel films he has seen, why would he sit through 20+ movies for the genuinely one or two good ones?
In the time it takes to watch 20 marvel movies he can watch 20-30 movies on Criterion Channel and get all the cinematic elements he wants and then more.
I think this is a really solid response, and I say this as someone who initially felt like his stance was a touch elitist.
Scorsese really doesn’t owe it to anyone to “love” a certain film. We don’t love everything. We don’t have to. I think his initial thoughts could have been worded better, and so he may have even been able to avoid the necessity to clarify. Yes, some might see this as “old vs new” or draw parallels between superhero movies and Star Wars reception back in the day, but at the end of the day, who cares what other people think. Enjoy what you enjoy.
The “big bad” out of this whole situation, imo, was the media creating some fake outrage over a couple of old school directors not swooning over Ant Man and fanning the flames all because of this constant need for clicks. Once they caught wind of the reactions, they were simply taking rounds questioning every single old dude their thoughts, hoping someone would say something even more outrageous and inflammatory (i.e. Coppola)
Also, DCEU fans can take a few seats. No, Scorsese “hating” MCU doesn’t mean he loves Justice League lmao.
Really shows how irrelevant DCEU is when MCU is the jump off point for critiquing all the major franchises. He even says "franchise" in his essay which extends to every blockbuster sequel, prequel, reboot etc.
It's still funny seeing people try and twist his words to make it seem like he likes their fav franchise.
I know in my heart that Scorsese would hate Maleficent and I'm fine with that.
Considering his reason not to direct Joker, I figure he doesn't like any CBM. Which is a pity because the first two Spider-Man films, X2 and Nolan's Batman films for instance, are all fantastic films. It's a pity the fact that it are superheroes gets in his way to enjoy something. To each their own of course.
