Was Martin Scorsese Right About Marvel? | EFAP Highlight
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 май 2024
- The gang goes over comments made by Martin Scorsese about if Marvel movies count as cinema.
ORIGINAL VIDEO: • EFAP #150 - The Third ...
WATCH EFAP!
- EFAP Main Channel: / @everyframeapause
- EFAP Audio Version: / user-624219017
HOSTS’ CHANNELS
- MauLer’s Channel: / @mauleryt
- Fringy’s Channel: / @fringy
- Rags’ Channel: / @rags
COMMUNITY
- MauLer Subreddit: / mauler EFAP
- EFAP Discord: discordapp.com/invite/aNX8J2v
- Fan Site: www.efap.me/
MERCH & DONATIONS
- MauLer’s Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=4817956
- MauLer’s Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/mauler
- MauLer’s Merch Store: maulers-store.creator-spring....
- Rags’ Patreon: / yourpalrags
- Rags’ Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/rags
FEATURED RUclipsRS
- Weekend Warrior’s Channel: / @weekendwarrior1
- HeelsvsBabyface’s Channel: / @heelvsbabyface
- TheoTTree’s Channel: / @theottree
- Indigo Gaming’s Channel: / @indigo_gaming
OUTRO MUSIC: “Last Stop” by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio 
Развлечения
"That Grace Randolph video was awful, we're never covering her again." - Sentences that aged poorly
All her videos are awful except for maybe the warcraft one.
Soooo....
This is speculation on my part, but this was around the time that The Irishman couldn't secure wide release and ended up on Netflix. That must have really cheesed him off, and then some reporter asks him about Marvel for some reason and it set him off.
Yeah total speculation on your part.
He wasn’t mad it was on Netflix, that was a business move. They paid him to make the movie with a blank check and He made more guaranteed money putting it on Netflix than as a theatre release.
I speculate that he thinks superhero movies are generic slop and he’s mad that his bloated “gangster” movies don’t get as many mainstream eyes on it as they did 25 years ago.
I’d take every bloated gangster movie he made over any Captain America movie btw. But it’s gotta irk an artist seeing Superhero slop over and over again. Marvel movies even at their peak were regurgitated spectacle normie trash. Not a bad thing, but not a serious thing either.
You call this person’s answer you responded to “speculation” and then proceeded to conject speculation yourself? And no a director wouldn’t make more money putting a movie on a streaming service because directors tend to get bonuses based on projections on how well a movie would do in theaters. If he made a movie that was going directly to streaming he would have made less money off that movie. And f*** you captain America movies have been awesome.
@@fy4b230also what’s with that’s not-ass username? Could you have chosen a worse handle that didn’t scream “I’m not a real person and just a generated hate response”?
This could become a series within EFAP: "Was X right about Y?"
For example: "Was George Lucas right about Disney?", "Was Nolan right about realism?" or "Was Mel Gibson right about the...?".
That last one could be a great 9 hour and 11 minute super compilation with 6 million clips
Yes, yes and YEEEEESSSSSS
Yes... yes he was
You know who would've saved everything??? The Headless Horseman and his slightly heated axe😂😂😂😂😂
34:32 Since "Lion King is a rip-off of Hamlet" always brought up, I'll expand on it: Shakespeare wrote some real low-brow plays (A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Taming of the Shrew) come to mind. Are those not real plays? Are they not art?
I would also like to extend that Hamlet is also a rip-off
Mozart litteraly wrote "leck mich im arsch" which translates too "lick me IN the ass"
Shakespeare is defined by the low-brow, common, and vulgar nature of his plays. They were seen at the time as unsophisticated. He was the Michael Bay of his day, in a detached sense.
He also wrote Titus Andronicus, that should tell you that he could write some real trash at times
Personally, I feel that it's between king lear or Othello for his best tragedy
George Lucas on Martin Scorsese's comments about Marvel movies:
"Look, Cinema is the art of a moving image. So if the image moves, then it's cinema. I think Marty has kind of changed his mind a little bit."
5:10 The subtle irony is that to even be able to create this edit, you have to know which scenes aren't just bombastic so as to be able to edit them out.
At the time, no, but he's absolutely right about post-Endgame Marvel. The MCU was never that deep but they still had some heart and thought put into them back then. Compare that to now when the director of the Black Widow movie basically said "Yeah I have no idea how Natasha escaped at the end so we didn't show anything lol."
Even now, I'd say he's wrong. Cinema is cinema, good or bad.
They never did though. You just didn't see it at the time.
@@CitizenScott No, they did. The series just ran out of steam after a decade.
@@ElvenRaptor They didn't. You're nostalgic. Go back.
@@CitizenScott I literally just rewatched Ironman the other day. It has plenty of heart. Change my mind.
So despite being a Netflix Original, The Irishman qualifies as cinema because it technically (barely) had a brief theatrical release...convenient.
2024 update Martin has started to walk back his words and according to George Lucas “cinema is the art of moving images. So if the image moves, then it’s cinema. I think Marty has kind of changed his mind a little bit.”
Awww this was before southpaw went schizo I liked him
Which one is Southpaw? Is that his actual channel name?
I think the reason why he called Marvel "not cinema" is to avoid explicitly criticising them as bad, vacuous cinema.
Sounds kinda like Scorcese just has a vague definition of the word "cinema" and he conflates it with the movie's level of quality. So when a movie that's more tailored to public appeal gets called cinema, he's taking that as comparing it to the movies he likes
Doesn't sound like that at all. He's a deeply personal filmmaker from a generation considered by many to be the golden age of pure cinema. Not about quality, but expression.
@@CitizenScott it's like if Gordon Ramsay, or other chef/ food expert, criticize a bad cooking and say "This is not a food!". While not exactly right, I think they deserve to say that
He uses cinema with films like how use literature for books: but such a term does not exist for films, so him using cinema the way he does is weird
@@CitizenScott Okay so what is Scorsese's definition of cinema? And cite your sources with the words he actually said.
Scorsese doesn't have a vague definition of "cinema". He doesn't have one. He's waffling and not thinking and not making arguments. Normally this is the sign to not take someone seriously, and yet here we are.
@@r3dr4te963 To be fair Gordon has a better case because there are quantitative food standards like a minimum core temperature for meat for it to be safe. I wish Gordon said "this isn't food!" more often on like, Kitchen Nightmares. (Sadly, he instead suffered a lot of food poisoning.)
It's different for cinema because Scorsese doesn't have a standard.
I’ve learned to hate the word “cinema”
So do most people who's consumption of media is limited to capeshit and space wizards.
@@jakfan09 So, literally no one.
@@ElvenRaptoryep
@@jakfan09 Exactly.
@@CitizenScott Not really.
38:06 - This reminds me of a video from Mother's Basement on how Uncharted 4 isn't a game. Not "Uncharted 4 is so bad it's not a game", "Uncharted 4 objectively isn't a game". He tries to state how Uncharted 4 objectively isn't a game by using the definition of a game and saying the game failed to live up to the definition because other games did it better.
It's one thing to not like the game or think the game is bad. It's another thing to say it objectively isn't a game.
He got so much flak for saying Uncharted 4 isn't a game he privated the video.
sounds like Mothers Basement.
No offense to Mr. Scorsese, he's made some truly classic films. But for someone that said "Marvel isn't cinema" and focuses on quality instead of entertainment, that seemed to have slipped his mind when he said "Yes" to being in Shark Tale.
Does marvel is kill?
Some loser called SP in call so this a old recording.
But buut, muh media literacy
Im glad the contrarian cried and pissed and shidded his wait out.
Who? I'm curious.
@@leipzigergnom South Paw. Dude is just a loser that mad that efal called his show bad. SP called Efal a rape apologist because they disagree with a scene in his show.
@@leipzigergnomSouthPaw. Long story. Don't bother
Mauler saying they would never cover grace again... man, I wish that was true lmao That Mario video was painful... though the SS one was worse lmao
Yeah, I've heard SS was pretty bad...
In the early 70's Martin Scorsese, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg. Brian Da Palma, and Francis Ford Coppola where all best friends. Some of there where even roommates, and all of them have remained close over the years. Surely Marty would not have this opinion about the works of this best friends. Star Wars is literally escapism in it's biggest form. Indiana Jones and Star Wars are just movie versions of old serialized comic book stories like flash Gordon etc. So what separates that from Marvel, other than over all quality.
Nothing. I think Scorsese is just airing out some old frustrations with he has with Spielberg and Lucas's work, but always refrained from being outspoken about it for the sake of their friendship. The MCU is the first franchise to come along in a long time to not have any of his old schoolmates involved, and so he's projecting all his grievances with popcorn entertainment onto it.
Like Deadpool said
This is Cinema
I know about SP.. but whatever happened to Evan Monroe?? What’s he up to now? He seemed kinda cool
He stuck with southpaw from what I understand.
Thank you for uploading these, Shortman. 🙏 you are doing the lord’s work
No views in 2 seconds, EFAP fell off
No longer peak fire.
Old man yells at cloud
What Ive learned from this comment section is that if you make enough good movies, you can say as much silly shit as you want and still be considered correct.
Marvel movies are cinema. Yes, phase 4 was a wretched batch of shit. Doesn't disqualify it from being cinema. Peoples seeming need to re interptet what he said into a more reasonable statement is very strange to me.
If only Cinema Roberto could enlighten us on this issue...!
Is Cinema Roberto real cinema? Or is he just Moviebob?
@@afelias He's the realest cinema there is. You cannot ignore his girth.
Scorsese is a great film director who is a lousy film critic. That might seem counterintuitive, until you think about some great athletes who were lousy coaches.
@@youtubeviolatedme7123 Many great professors in university, great at research! Terrible teachers. It's a common problem that many knowledgeable people are also poor communicators.
You mean if you are a legend of cinema then you can offers insight to ignorant nerds like efap
Martin Scorsesse Based?!
Based? Hard to tell (kinda doubt it). An old, legit master filmmaker (and that he is) who has hard, unapologetic opinions when it comes to cinema? Yes, that he is. Look, he is very old and stuck in his ways.
Unfortunately not
He has survived so long in Hollywood so he is obviously a pawn to the "chosen people", so I don't know about based.
No.
Martin Scorcesse old and elitist.
I thought he was stupid at the time, but after Marvel and Disney’s recent output… I still disagree.
"Yes. Im Iron Man."
Southpark is always so insufferable to listen too
I mean it's pretty much like having a gourmet chef bust into your kitchen and jump down your throat for eating a grilled cheese sandwich. Yes, sir, I understand that you're versed in the art and that with a lot of time and effort you can put together something amazing. The problem is that sometimes I don't want to go through all that at the end of a workday and a grilled cheese sandwich is perfectly fine. It's a distinction between art and high art- you can lament that not as many people are into high art these days and that's perfectly valid. You get into trouble when you start asserting that, just because it's not high art therefore it's not art at all.
Sometimes people just wanna turn their brains off and enjoy a bit of escapism without being challenged. Looking down on people like that doesn't actually make you any of a better person, and being vocal about how much you look down on "those people" is where you cross the line into being a snobbish jackass. Some people seem to have their own personal tastes confused with a broad, overarching code which establishes how all humans everywhere should behave- they've decided, very arbitrarily, that all art should be in some way "challenging" and that it's a personal threat to their own dignity when other people enjoy a movie just to relax with their friends. Again- you can look down on people for having different tastes all you want. It doesn't make you a worse person- (and certainly doesn't make you any better) but you don't have any right to act surprised and offended when you try to act all high and mighty in public and end up getting humbled by the common masses you thought were beneath you.
It's a tale as fucking old as time.
Yea, having standards is tough.
Keep up the mediocre work!
@@Ceyx000 Except you don't have standards.
@@ElvenRaptor lmao
The funny thing is
this only reminds me of Gordon Ramsay fucking up a grilled cheese sandwich
@@jakfan09 Considering you have yet to prove any of your arguments, you're in no position to laugh.
MauLer is best with a smaller crew.
If it's like in this episode, EFAP becomes echo-chambery.
Cinema is Cinema. If it's in a movie theater, it's Cinema.
Mr Incredible pointing
So a porno in the movie theater is cinema?
Even legendary filmmakers can huff copium from time to time.
This whole "othering" of blockbusters is, ironically, very similar what comics went throgh. "Professional" critics and writers used to think for decades that all comics were shitty, childish slop... then came the 80s and stuff like Watchmen and Maus and instead of admitting they were wrong they just appropriated the term "graphic novel" and used it to distinguish the "comics for intellectuals" from the dumb "superhero slop", and drove a giant chasm in the creative community that surrounded the media that persists and poisons it to this day. So... sure feel free to do the same with movies now, see how well that turns out.
History repeats, always finding a new thing to poison with the problems of yesterday.
Martin is just a sad old man who is trying desperately in vain to hold onto his legacy and it's relevance in the modern day.
I hate that THIS is what we're bothering Martin Scorsese with at this point in his career. God marvel movies really screwed up film forever.
He's talking about the franchiseability of the Marvel movies and how they're driven by committees instead of just being a creator and his/her team working towards a motion picture vision. You can like superhero movies just fine, there are a lot that I like, but comparing them to films like the Godfather by Coppola, The Shawshank Redemption by Frank Darabont, or even more recently the Marriage Story by Noah Baumbach...is comical.
The majority of all films are driven by committees, though. That's not something new that Marvel started. Hell, a lot of the old Black and White classics were created the same way.
@@ElvenRaptor a committee of creators and investors sure. But Marvel and franchise-focused films are mostly driven by marketing and branding, so it’s really hard to defend them as creative endeavors when the goal is to sell merchandise and create a consumer funnel.
There’s nothing wrong with liking stuff like that, like I said - I do, just don’t pair it with real artistically driven films. It’s like comparing Cocomelon to Coraline. Both want to make money, but there is a clear difference in artistic integrity.
@@Go_away__ Actually, if you watch the first three Phases of the MCU, there is plenty of artistic integrity and internal consistency. There is a reason these stories touched so many people's lives.
It was made by people who love Marvel Comics and tried to emulate what the comics did on the big screen (standalone stories sometimes crossover and sometimes there's a hidden villain whose reach touches all the stories in some way).
It might not be the kind of cinema you like, but it IS cinema, and it IS art.
For something like the MCU, you need a core creative team who rank higher than the filmmakers of the individual films, because all the pieces need to fit into a larger whole. The MCU could not function if the individual film were made by directors just doing whatever they want.
Saying the MCU isn't art is like saying a well-crafted TV series, like "Twin Peaks", isn't art due to the need for someone to be making sure the individual episodes form the large narrative the way they need to.
So, yes, I do defend the MCU's artistry, no matter what art snobs like you think.
Also, if the MCU is non-art created by committee, than so is the old Universal Monster Universe and other shared universe to in existence.
In fact, I'll say the MCU is on the same level as artistic endeavors like Lord of the Rings. Change my mind.
that one dude says "like" too much
Just turn off your pop corn, eat your brain and watch the fucking movie!
Marble
Bombastic: adjective
high-sounding but with little meaning; inflated.
Cinema: noun
the production of movies as an art or industry.
So Marvel is bombastic cinema.
@@hussarzwei6223That can be accurate
You have obviously never watched a Marvel movie if you think they're devoid of meaning.
@@ElvenRaptorok sport. Hey, what's the "meaning" of 'The Marvels"? How about the "Eternals"? What is the theme of "Black Widow"? "Iron Man 3"?
Marvel has 3-4 quality movies. (Ironman 1, Avengers, Civil War, & Endgame).
The rest is soulless spectacle.
This episode was a classic example of someone stating an objective fact, and someone taking it as a personal attack.
"That lamp post is rusty."
"What's wrong with rusty lamp posts?"
"Why do you hate lamp posts?"
"Why is oxidation bad?"
" well, I like rusty lamp posts, therefore you're wrong."
One of the most dishonest "debates" on efap.
My biggest criticism of MCU is where do you start?
If the answer takes an entire paragraph to explain, then maybe your film franchise is unnecessarily bloated and confused
iron man (2008).
thats... not a paragraph. My biggest criticism is half of gen 2, gen 3, and all of gen 4+ is shit.
Before cutting the left hand
0:55, 14:25, 26:45, 27:35, 38:00, 40:15, 41:10, 49:05, 1:04:15, 1:13:40, 1:14:50, 1:21:50
Hi Wolf!
I’d like to see an AI version of EFAP where are the Brit accents are swapped with American, and vice versa.
Two words:
AI ART
🍿🍿🍿🍿
Did Scorsese define what he meant by Cinema?
If he did, could someone post the timestamp for when they quoted his definition in the video? Thanks ahead of time.
Kind of. He said that 'cinema' uses the language used in movies to communicate things like how a character feels in a scene can be considered cinema because it respects the art of cinema.
I think his point was related to how flatly shot the dialogue scenes are in MCU movies where an actor is framed in a green screen shot with effects swirling in the background, so the scene is relying on the actor to portray the emotion rather than the cinematography.
I suppose a basic example would be in Spider-Man 1 where Green Goblin and Peter have their confrontation. At first, Green Goblin is framed as larger than Peter, then he literally lowers himself to Peter's level as his figuratively does so to have a heart-to-heart conversation. Later on, when Goblin is defeated, it is reversed with Peter towering over Goblin.
You don't really see stuff like that in even the better MCU movies due to the over-reliance on green screen instead of practical sets, which is something EFAP pointed out when covering Loki season 2 because, unlike other MCU projects, the show had blocking due to the practical sets used.
The answer is no. He used the term as vague as possible
Sounds like Scorcese means "high art films" by cinema as opposed to low art films like Marvel. It's a fair distinction expressed in imprecise language.
They're both still cinema, though.
Alpha centari is 4 lightyears away though.
I find it kinda crazy that people still don't understand why Marty is wrong with his comments. It doesn't matter how shit a movie is(and Marvel are experts at being shit) but by the common definition of Cinema Marvel movies very much are. He spoke poorly and people ran with it and still try to defend the comments. Scorcese is a brilliant director but he said something silly.
Scorsese is one of those people who expressed himself better through his art than in interviews.
I find it kinda crazy that people infer a qualitative statement from his words. He's not saying they're bad movies and bad movies aren't cinema. He's saying that they don't have the heart of pure cinema.
@@CitizenScott There is no such thing as "pure cinema". And yes, they did have the heart, from 2008-2019.
@@CitizenScott I think the issue a lot of people have with it is that "Pure cinema" tends to be pretentious wankery with fans who look down their noses at everyone repulsed by its self-indulgence. Liking the Godfather movies is perfectly fine, I'm sure they're great films if you're into them. Thinking less of people who don't want to sit through several hours of disgusting old men doing terrible things to each-other while messily eating Italian food- that's a great way to get people to dislike you and think you're a navel-gazing jackass.
@@Phoenix0F8 A lot of people think classical music enjoyers are snobs too. Doesn't make Mozart's No. 40 any less a symphony. Not sure where the "thinking less of people" comes from.
Longman highlight = "Longlight"
38:30 Huh. Since Mauler brings up "not video games," I wonder where mobile games and gachas go on their system. Horrible games for the industry, or not even games?
Aah Southpaw and Evan Monroe.......
Damn
I know what happened with SP, but did something happen with Evan?
Did something happened between the EFAP crew and Evan ?
It has been a long while since I last heard of him, but is this possibly related to the SP fallout ?
Is Evan also anti-EFAP? I know some of the ECUM bros and Madvocate are, but Evan too?
Yup. he ruined their definition of whataboutism to mean "comparison i don't like" then left.
@@janehrahan5116 Which EFAP was this? Or was this on some other platform?
the mcu is cinema but is it kino?
There's a phenomenon in the literary scene where people read Harry Potter and then literally nothing else after. The topic of reading comes up, they tell you they love reading, you ask their favorite book, it's Harry Potter. You ask what else they like, they don't know.
In a similar vein, Marvel also sucked the life out of film. Everything is brightly colorful, there are no consequences, no tension, everything is a quip or bathos. Marvel boiled film right down to a formula. You want to know where we got stupid lines like "They fly now? They fly now." Marvel.
So is Scorsese pretentious? Sure. Is he wrong? I don't think so.
No, That's the fault of studios looking at what one studio did with one franchise and thinking they can apply it to everything.
I would go with what the EFAP crew says towards the beginning. Marvel and DC are creatively bankrupt but still cinema. They might be bad or just not your preference but still cinema.
@@ElvenRaptoryou mean the Studious owned by the same people? Try again 🤡
@@Ceyx000 No, I don't think I will, because I didn't actually say anything incorrect.
Harry Potter is still literature, so what's your point?
No
Elitist shit like this has been going on for a long, long time. One book that comes to mind is Justine from the Marquis De Sade. That story would get you killed 😆
There is a version from 1976. It is unhinged. How unhinged?
BOTH JACK PALANCE AND KLAUS KINSKI ARE IN IT. 🤤🤤
I hate filmbro RUclips, both sides of this argument are fucking obnoxious.
Agreed.
You hate Efap?
Luckily, as an ascended fence-sitter, you're above this obnoxious rabble.
@@PowerfulSkeleton oh, I'm not a fence sitter, I think scorcese is right, and speaking of cinema as a meta, I also think he's a fucking idiot because all his movies are the same.
@@84everfan90 Yes Goodfellas, The Last Temptation of Christ, Shutter Island, and Hugo are all interchangeable.
It all depends on one’s definition of cinema. Scorsese argues that most Marvel and superhero content is schlock with no deeper emotional or philosophical context, anything “deeper” is surface level at best (see Winter Soldier or Thanos’ motivations). Is it perhaps impetuous, assuming or unfair of Scorsese to state (in a pseudo-objective manner) that there are no emotional subtexts to any Marvel scene in any of the 20+ films? Sure. But to state that any mcu schlock is in par with Interstellar (which by the way had no “action” scenes) let alone anything on Scorseses filmography is being almost deliberately obtuse and comes off as fanboyism. Tl;dr this vid was a miss from you all.
Nobody is saying MCU schlock is on the same level as movies like Interstellar. We are saying that it is still cinema because it objectively is by the definition of the word.
The entire damn point is that Scorsese makes no attempt to define the word 'cinema' in any way other than 'the thing I made and/or like', or maybe 'films that arent part of a franchise'.
By any auteur’s definition of “cinema” things like the MCU and Michael Bay films don’t constitute cinema. They are schlock. Sometimes schlock is ok but that’s all it is. Nothing to be learned only consumed.
I mean... There are good MCU movies which are way better than Interstellar (terrible)
No one said that anything was on par. The problem Scorsese made, alongside the other problems, is that he made "is cinema" a bar to clear, not a scale like what EFAP uses. So clearing the bar by an inch or a mile is the same to Scorsese.
Yes he was a thousand percent right and George Lucas trying to walk back Scorsese's comments sounded Disney shill. For every time I've praised George or been critical of him its been for good reasons, but shilling for Disney is rock bottom.
Did people pay to see Marvel films in theaters? Then, it's cinema.
These are the worst arguments I've seen from this show.
Anyone with any sense of fairness and taste knows exactly what he meant. A few tiny islands of artistry in the ocean of CGI and joke-by-committee dross that Is the Marvel franchise doesn't mean he isn't right.
Explain what it is he meant then so that I can apply it on an objective scale.
Can you please be more specific?
It's funny how many people say "anyone would know what he meant" and yet can't point to what he actually said to prove it.
Not to mention all the people who "know" all disagree with each other on the details, which tells you about how much clearer mud is than Scorsese's waffling.
It's not about quality, it's about the filmmaking process and the goal.
MCU movies aren't made like art, they're carefully made to appeal to the widest possible audience and constantly changed based on market research and focus group testing.
They're corporate products solely designed to sell merchandise and advertise future products.
That's why Scorsese calls these movies "theme park rides".
Auteur cinema might not be for everyone and might not always work but it's made with a clear vision and passion that the director and writer have.
Most people easily understand this but somehow, the big brains over here can't figure it out.
As much as I agree here… it’s still cinema as those big brains say. Here you are also expressing completely different criticism other than “it’s not cinema”. Unless you define cinema as such like here, then I agree with your definition. But Scorsese here didn’t defined it and his process of defining it fell into the lane of “I don’t like it” which is fine but not fine when defining “what’s cinema”
@@leonardoespino9780 But that's what he meant and 99% of people seem to understand it.
My comment is not the only one here that says the exact same thing, we all get this.
EFAP doesn't.
@@MakaRonMcPasta yeah that’s true. But he should have stated like this, more clearer because they are critiquing what he said vs what he meant. Because his critique was again more on the “like” vs “dislikes” and saying “I don’t like this hence it’s not cinema”
That's nice. They're still cinema.
Cinema is visual art that simulates experiences and communicates ideas, stories, perceptions, feelings, beauty, or atmosphere through the use of moving images, except for Marvel, which doesn't.
How to tell me you haven't actually watched any of them without telling me you haven't actually watched any of them.
I recently had a conversation with my family surrounding this issue "What do you consider art?" was the topic
I took the Scorsese position of that's not art just because you say it is. I ended up putting my family in a awkward position by asking if pornography or advertising are art and they said they were. Now I would agree with the EFAP crew, if i were ever privileged enough to be on it. But the attempt to gatekeep is valid generally because otherwise you allow things that are definetly not cinema into the cinema category. For example is pornography cinema? It's on film, there are often characters, plot, character growth. How can the EFAP crew deny it the title of cinema?
I'm looking forward to efap covering the classic cinema "Debbie Does Dallas".
You seem really hung up on making sure pornography doesn't get defined as cinema, but I'm not really sure what you lose if it ends up defined that way. Something being cinema doesn't mean you have to personally like it. You need to have more criteria about the definition of cinema, at which point the pornography red herring isn't necessary anyway because you'll have already explained why it doesn't count as cinema. As it is, this reads like a dog chasing its own tail around and around with "I can't just let *anything* be cinema! Then pornography would be cinema! That would be horrible! Pornography isn't cinema! If pornography is cinema, just about anything could be cinema! I don't want anything to be cinema! Then pornography could be cinema..."
@@Phoenix0F8 I'm against porn being considered cinema or film because porn is immoral, immoral things being accepted and normalized provably makes society worse. What i lose is being a part of a mostly safe, mostly moral, generally better society.
Speaking of logical fallacies, thanks for strawmaning me into a dog. I never said nothing can be allowed to be cinema in fact i said the opposite. I agree that cinema includes things that Scorsese and myself don't prefer but that does not mean that anything can be cinema.
What i did say is that gatekeeping is generally a good and or necessary thing because otherwise you allow things that don't belong in that environment.
@@gladiater56 But cinema doesn't inherently mean something that is acceptable in society. It just refers to a type of visual media, without any suppositions on its morality.
In the same way, a drug can be anything from ibuprofen to crack. The word drug simply categorizes it without any moral connotations. Instead, we call drugs that are immoral "hardcore" or "illicit".
So, we can simply do the same for pornography and call it "immoral cinema". This way we don't have to do any special pleading for what is or isn't cinema, while still defining pornography as immoral.
@@Tabellarium We could absolutely do that, we already do they're called adult films. However even that is a step, however small, towards normalcy. But what you don't see is porn films getting nominated for Oscars just like you don't see meth manufacturers getting awards. We don't regard them as even a subcategory often times. Why is that? Because the people said no that's not something we want to normalize we're not going to support this and the elites in the film industry correspondingly gatekept and said "no we don't want you here." That's a good thing. We want to normalize good things and demonize bad ones. In western society we seem to be doing the opposite in some cases.
He compared Marvel films to rollercoster rides. Basically huge spectacles without any lasting effect to them. I do not understand how people could even argue against the take.
Because most of them were more than that if you bothered watching them. And they have had a lasting effect.
Yep. I think this is the first EFAP video that has made me cringe.
They are so desperate to prove their point they equate Marvel trash to Apocalypse Now and 2001.
Holy Shit. The video gets even more desperate further in. It's like a master class in pedantry.
They want to be pedantic/semantic. The panel's only argument is to conflate, distract, & detract without providing a substitive discussion. The entire coverage was "whataboutism?".
"ThE ePiC oF gIlGaMeSh Is A sUpErHeRo StOrY.."
Okay but are rollercoaster rides not artistry? Isn't the design of that experience an artform? Are Marvel films cinema or not, and why?
He was right when he said it and so many got unnnecessarily pissy about it. There are certainly some that are very good (Winter Soldier, Iron Man, etc.) but taken altogether, even before Phase 5, he's right.
Great way to self-report as not having watched the thing you comment under.
@@Vickyorlo Nope, I didn't and I'm not ashamed to say that
No. No, he wasn't. And isn't. Phase 5 is just a series that ran of out steam after lasting longer than it should have. But the MCU at its core had everything cinema needs.
@@primarybufferpanel9939 so your definition of cinema is good movies? They would agree if that was the definition of cinema. The issue is thats not the definition and therefore not what martin said.
Mfw it's called the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe'...
Yes
Person a. X is a bad Z.
Person b. X isn't Z. It's Y.
Person a. X has all the criteria to be z. What makes it y?
Person b. That it's bad.
Person b. working off the bizarre notion that there is only good Z.
“What is cinema” is the new “What is a woman”
Doesn’t matter if you wear a dress or cut your wiener off. Still not a woman.
Doesn’t matter if the movie is trash and soulless and made to sell toys. It’s still a cinema.
Mcu sucks. We don’t have to keep trying to prop it up. It was the same shit over and over.
Not really. It brought consistently new stuff at its height.
Yep. The mcu was mostly mediocre movies propped up by a handful of good ones.
Never was I ever in doubt that marvel is cinema. Marvel is like going to the theatre.. and watching an hour and twenty minutes of nothing. They put it out because they need to put something on the screen for views.. but it’s sh*t. Kind of like a video that didn’t need to be made. It was made for viewership because you want people to stay engaged. Kind of like people on RUclips who’ve ran out of things to say for today. I didn’t need it.. but it was made anyway.
I do not hate EFAP btw. I can criticize too. relax.. EFAP did this to my brain. Instead of having TikTok brain, I have a hyper attention span now. Long brain.
👍🙏
Yes, he was right. He was not saying that explosions or action scenes disqualify films from being cinema, that's a wild thing to infer from his words. He's just saying they lack the personal heart and spirit of pure cinema. Watch Satantango and tell me the MCU is the same thing. If you don't understand what he's saying, then you don't understand cinema.
You've obviously not watched any of them if you think that. Also, a Hungarian drama film existing does not make them non-cinema. They're cinema. They're popcorn cinema. But they're still cinema.
@@ElvenRaptor Watched them all up to Endgame and a few since then. They're fun. I like them. Also, they're not cinema. See how nuance works?
@@CitizenScott That's not nuance. That's snobbery. They are cinema, as much as any other film. If the MCU isn't cinema, then neither are 99.9999999999999999999% of all films made.
@@ElvenRaptor It is nuance. You just don't like it. They're not cinema. They're popcorn blockbusters, like you said yourself. That's not cinema the way Scorsese means cinema, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nuance.
@@CitizenScott Neither you nor Scorsese have the authority to decide what is cinema, though. Popcorn blockbusters are still cinema, whether you like it or not. Cinema is many, many things. You and Scorsese's definition is regressive and restrictive.
1:05:02 that's a great quote.
The difference between real cinema and non-cinema is whether it's taking a risk.
This means that anything that's created without risk can never be cinema. If you already made one movie like it and it was succcessful, it's not cinema. If it's from a popular genre, it's not cinema. If it covers a hot topic, it's not cinema. If you use known actors, it's not cinema. If you're too famous and you have star power, you cannot make cinema by definition. He just disqualified every single famous film maker from making real cinema.
Chef's kiss.
If people paid to see it in theaters, it's cinema. Sorry, but that's how it is.
Its just his personal opinion, he is a very deconstructive and personal filmmaker. Unlike someone like similar to Spielberg who has said he enjoys superhero cinema
When he made the comment, absolutely not and it comes off as pretentious ego! But now is comment is accurate but still pretentious
Id trade all the MCU movies for 1 movie thats actually above average
Saying its "not cinema" is an absurd statement to make about any movie, and is way more insulting than saying the movie is bad. At least the creators can take away some criticism from peoples opinions on the quality of their movies. However saying that a movie is not cinema to the creators just leaves them dumbfounded. What makes The Barbie movie more "cinema" than the straight to DVD Barbie cartoons? I'd say both are cinema, however one is obviously more well crafted, leading to a better quality product and experience for the viewer.
Not really absurd.
@@CSorgini No, it is absurd.
Even now, as Marvel movies have turned into complete and utter nonsense .... Scorsese is still wrong. Cinema could be bad, even terrible; but it's still cinema
It's not about a qualitative statement. They lack heart. Always have.
@@CitizenScottI'm sorry, you're just wrong, they are still cinema, even if a lot of them lacks heart. How is a movie lacking heart disqualifying it as being cinema? And how do you know some of the bad Marvel movies lack heart. FATWS was made by someone who wanted to send a message, yet it is still terrible. Does that show have heart or not?
@@CitizenScott Actually, most of the high point of the MCU has heart. You're just a snob.
@@scarletfinite8041 Series aren't cinema. Every movie isn't cinema. Every blockbuster isn't cinema. Doesn't mean some can't be cinema, but these terms are not synonymous.
@@CitizenScott No, they all are. I'm willing to bet if you asked Scorsese if he thought the old Universal Monster movies were cinema, he'd say "Yes."
This really goes back to your overly legalistic interpretaion of of the word "art". Yes, you can call a lot of things with a scintilla of "art" art, but some things are obviously more art than others. A Shaker chair can be considered art, but it is facially less art than Starry Night. We all know what Scorsese meant because we can discuss it. If it's simpler for your life to say "well Dreamgirls and Gone with the Wind are basically the same thing," then I wish you well.
Also, this whole arugment is dumb because the conceit is that you are disagreeing with his statement while clearly understanding that what you are disagreeing with is not what he said. It's like if Scorsese said "1+3 = 4," and you replied "no, it should be 1+1, so you're wrong, the answer is 2". You know that he's proposing a value that's more than just "cinema is a sequence of events filmed on cameras". You're welcome to disagree with that value, but you really didn't address it. You just asserted it was wrong by appealing to a more fundamental definition. It's like if someone was trying to explain how to throw a curveball and someone just kept repeating, "nuh uh, the gravitational constant is 9.8ms2". I suspect most of chat likes this approach because radical egalitarianism is hip and they hate old man telling them some things are less art than others. I think the EFAP crew have some brainrot from effete, limp-penised dilettantes like Big Joel being pretentious about art and have forgotten that there are serious artists out there.
I completely agree with you but I have a little trouble with the Shaker furniture analogy.
I'm an (extremely) amateur woodworker and carver and I'm amazed at the craftsmanship of Shaker furniture. But with that said, it's definitely not stuff I'm into aesthetically. Although I like some of the stuff that was inspired by their work.
Anyway, I'm not sure I would have used that analogy since long before it became a phenomenon the Shakers were just trying to make quality furniture that fit with their somewhat aecetic religious and cultural values. There was little to no pretense by the makers of it being art.
❤
Amen, brother. MauLer is best with a smaller crew. If it's like in this episode, EFAP becomes echo-chambery.
This is wrong. "More art vs. less art" isn't the same as "is art vs. isn't art". That was the point made against Scorsese that there is apparently a bar to clear instead of talking about the artistry. And then of course, he never really told anyone what the bar really was. That's why at some point you just have to accept that Scorsese's argument, at its most clear, is just "cinema is things I like" because he never set the bar properly, much less a scale. Of course a scale is preferable, but the one arguing has to explain theirs.
nothing you said here said something wasn't art or wasn't cinema tho...
Yes. Next question.
Scorsese is full of cognitive dissonance. He literally has a running from an explosion scene, in slow motion right at the beginning of this film Goodfellas.....
And there's a lot of older folks that didn't like what he was doing by highlighting the stereotypes of Italian people. I'm sure they would call what he made. But it is.
Comparing 2001: A Space Odyssey to Guardians of the Galaxy is comparing a Michelin star sushi dinner to an above average fast food burger. 😂
Not really. I honestly got more out of the latter, simply because there was more to get out of the latter. "2001" is actually a very simplistic movie with a very simplistic message when it comes down to it.
Marvel was always sludge.
That's mostly true (especially in the early 2000s), but they have been lucky/fortunate to have some legitimate good movies here and there.
Complete nonsense
@@SpFlash1523 Not really. They were always good. They just ran out of steam.
Nah, their earlier output was genuinely pretty good.
This episode was horrible. You all kept saying the same thing over and over again. Mauler, clean it up! This was more trash than Martins comments
I prefer movies that are entertaining without shame, to all the pretentious and supremely boring French ones.
Except in this discussion there's no shameless entertainment or pretentious French films. Only "by the numbers" relatively safe investments that neuter entertainment on all possible angles, from distracting CGI to dialogue being optimized for future subtitling/dubbing.
Yes, because all french movies are boring drama...
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Wait, how are they neutering entertainment if they're still considered more entertaining?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD if you want to talk exclusively about things that are in the discussion, someone might claim that Winter Soldier has more to say than any gangster movie. Winter soldier is about the dangers of unchecked and unlimited power. What is Goodfellas about? Some boys never growing out of their teen age gangster faze?
@@makhmal1776Unchecked and unlimited power is a pretty big theme in GoodFellas too. Especially with Joe Pesci's character with how he gets away with killing people around him and no one doing anything about it because of his position, and it came out long before Winter Soldier. Dumb comments like these are why you EFAP simps deserve to be dunked on. Also Goodfellas is more entertaining than any Marvel movie.
Holy strawman, batman!
One hour and twenty minutes of avoiding the simple answer:
He doesn't view the MCU as the same thing as films artfully created in pursuit of telling a more grounded story. Not from the perspective of superheroes nor action flicks being worth inherently less, they just fill the role of entertainment rather than living up to the artform of cinema. I'm sure he would say the same about hundreds of other films, not just the MCU.
He didn't claim the MCU told bad stories.
He didn't claim that the MCU wasnt visually impressive.
He didn't claim there were no emotional beats in the MCU.
He didn't claim the MCU has no stakes.
He didn't claim the MCU was illogical.
He didn't even claim action movies or the bombastic were inherently bad.
Yall made that pile of nonsense up.
He simply thinks the MCU doesn't compare when held to the standard of cinema that predates it.
He literally said they aren't cinema, which implies he does not think they have any of those things. Actually, the MCU does hold up to the standard of cinema that predates it. Quite easily.
I wonder if you guys still stand by this argument.
I don't see why they wouldn't, they're completely right. Marvel from phase 4 onwards is utter shit, yet it's still cinema. It is categorically cinema, the categorization is not influenced by the quality of the product.
It is hilarious, efab said literally what they failed to do entire session.
Quote: Scorsese said something stupid, get over it.
They can’t get over someone saying something stupid like the people crying about context.
Endgame does fucking suck.
Fringy (one of the hosts) has a video titled "Engame is terrible"
This is not cinema
Scorsese was right. His argument isn't about the explosions, it's about the story for him. He's from a different generation, of course he thinks that most MCU movies are amusement rides. He didn't say that's a bad thing.
He's still incorrect regardless if it's about the explosions or the story. He describes those movies as if they're new when they have been around for a long time, so long that they were even in his generation. The term "Blockbuster" was coined thanks to Steven Spielberg's Jaws, followed by George Lucas' Star Wars. Most people agree that the movies Martin Scorsese made in the 1970s and 1980s were the highlight of his career so you can't argue he's from a different generation, considering that two movies from that era were the starting point of modern Hollywood blockbuster movies. I get that it may not be his thing, but claiming they're not cinema is laughable.
No, he's wrong, because these films have a lot of story.
Nah, he was right
Nah, he was wrong.
*nuh uh*
No he wasn't. The Marvels isn't cinema @@ElvenRaptor
@@krisj827 No, Marvels is still cinema regardless of its quality.
You say marvel movies are on the same level as Apocalypse Now and 2001?
*AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHH!*
Were you trying to destroy the credibility of the show in one episode?
Only in the sense that they're all cinema.
It's Marty's own fault for making it about "is cinema vs. isn't cinema" rather than "more cinematic vs. less cinematic," or about artistry, or craft. It's Marty who turned it into a bar to clear. So no, EFAP never made that claim, but oddly enough Marty might just say something like that. Well, if he was ever consistent.
Go back. Try again.
Terminally online consoomers who eat Disney sludge on a daily basis are commenting on Scorcese's words.
Ya'll are usually on point but you are way out of your league here. It's fine if you enjoy the movies you enjoy but stop trying to glorify capeshit conveyor belt nonsense.
This is pretension at the highest level.
Yes the people that consume the sludge and then rip it apart and call it sludge. Totally consoomers
@@ThisisKyle They hate it but they are defending it with their lives in this video.
@@Cello10131 You are intentionally misunderstanding their argument. They aren’t defending “sludge,” they are pointing out the obvious nonsense argument that it “isn’t cinema,” when by definition even bad cinema is still cinema.
You know this already tho, you just want to argue on the side of film snobbery.
@@ThisisKyle Consume sludge and then rip it apart and yet hardly do they ever watch anything legitimately challenging. When have the Efap members actually bothered with something by Charlie Kaufman, David Lynch, or Michael Haneke? All they do is watch mainstream garbage and complain about the state of cinema without realizing that they are part of the problem.
As a person who didn't watch the original stream and had loose recollection of what Scorsese stated in that article, I was rather confused and thought this discussion kinda sounding circle-jerky...at first.
It was maybe halfway through, when statements started to be clarified like making the distinction between low-brow/high-brow and the further clarifications of what Scorcesse meant, did I understand where these viewpoints.
All in all, while I believe the criticisms here are warranted, I think this stream definitely would've benefited from a refresher at the beginning of going through Scorsese's article/interview rather than using the video they were playing off of. (my critique here might be null if they have gone through the article itself and I just missed that stream too)