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.
Apparently he likes Nolan's Batman
Martin Scorsese: “There’s always the budget, but I am more concerned about the creative freedom”
The big productions of Chris Nolan for example, they combine both: an incredible mind and beautifully made films on a big scale, so it is possible, there is room. I am just worried about the young generation and their impression of what cinema is.
He probably appreciates the technical aspects of them but I doubt those films are his cup of tea.
Remember when Cronenberg said this about them-
I think people who are saying ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is, you know, supreme cinema art, I don’t think they know what the fuck they’re talking about.”
“Christopher Nolan’s best movie is ‘Memento,’ and that is an interesting movie. I don’t think his Batman movies are half as interesting, though they’re 20 million times the expense,”
“What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he’s shooting IMAX. That’s really tricky and difficult to do. I read about it in ‘American Cinematography Magazine,’ and technically, that’s all very interesting,” he said, before adding a last jab. “The movies, to me, they’re mostly boring.”
The problem is that almost everyone is avoiding the elephant in the room that is the discussion about distribution/exhibition, which is the core of Scorsese's lament.
Are the original Star Wars movies from Scorsese bro Lucas any more deep or say more about the "human condition" than the better Marvel movies.
I love those movies and Spielberg's Raiders, but does anyone really believe there are real "stakes" in those movies where the heroes won't win, which seems to be a sticking point for Scorsese in his op-ed. As others have said before, it's those Star Wars and Indy movies that have created the franchise culture we live in today.
The problem is that almost everyone is avoiding the elephant in the room that is the discussion about distribution/exhibition, which is the core of Scorsese's lament.
People like to say Hollywood has never tried, but that's not really true, is it? They gave Fincher $170M for Benjamin Button which was as much as Nolan had for freaking TDK at the time, and the film did poorly. A few years later they gave him about $100M for Dragon Tattoo and it was another box office disappointment.
They gave Aronofsky $125M for his weird Noah movie. That one turned out a bit better, but hardly anything to boast of. Scott basically went half Last Temptation on Moses and they gave him $200M to do it. A huge bomb obviously.
Zemeckis tried to make R rated animated films, a mainstream thing, with Beowulf. They gave him a chunk of money. The film was terrific but the audience didn't give a shit.
2049 lost $80M according to reports.
Some risks like Gravity, The Revanant or Dunkirk have paid off, but overall plenty more have failed. In most cases movie audience have rejected more experimental approaches in favour of more familiar stories and threaded waters.
Are the original Star Wars movies from Scorsese bro Lucas any more deep or say more about the "human condition" than the better Marvel movies.
I love those movies and Spielberg's Raiders, but does anyone really believe there are real "stakes" in those movies where the heroes won't win, which seems to be a sticking point for Scorsese in his op-ed. As others have said before, it's those Star Wars and Indy movies that have created the franchise culture we live in today.
Coppola said that Spielberg's great luck was that the film he wanted to make were those the audience wanted to see. And that Lucas wasted his talent doing Star Wars, and had the potential to do a much better career than he did, in his opinion.
Scorsese and Coppola said in an interview that the only director who did really the film he wanted to do without any interference from the studio was Woody Allen in an interview 10 years ago. Strangely enough, I found another interview of Scorsese with French director Tavernier in the 80's where they said the same thing about Allen being the only one who could do whatever he wanted, because he operated outside of the system. Scorsese knows very well he has had to compromise. The last act of Gangs of New York was butchered because there was no more budget.
Also when asked what their favorite films are, Scorsese and Coppola would name a lot of non-hollywood films, films where the director had absolute control, like Wajda, Visconti, Bergman, Fellini, Renoir, Kurosawa.
Coppola described his generation of directors (Lucas, Scorsese, Spielberg, De Palma) as having been mostly influenced by four key directors : Kubrick, Kurosawa, Bergman and Fellini.
The problem is that almost everyone is avoiding the elephant in the room that is the discussion about distribution/exhibition, which is the core of Scorsese's lament.
