Western Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio Eye Killers of the Flower Moon

[Wheels]

That's probably why he went to Netflix!

Exactly.

I don't see why Marty can't be criticized though.

He knows what kind of movies he does and how much money he brings in for a theatrical release usually.

 

[Eddie Dean]

He’s not spending my money. I don’t care.

 

[Wheels]

No but he can be passive aggressive about films that would probably make his projects possible. The ones we discuss most.

The film industry is a balance of art and commerce.

It's Show Business.

 

[Eddie Dean]

He wasn’t passive aggressive about them. He accurately diagnosed them.

and the problem is those films don’t make other films possible.

 

[Wheels]

He wasn’t passive aggressive about them. He accurately diagnosed them.

and the problem is those films don’t make other films possible.

They (Studios) have always needed blockbuster tent poles. The majority could be described exactly as Marty described comic book films.

They do provide funding for smaller films. We can talk about middle budget and original blockbuster films not being made but where's the money in Scorsese's specific projects? What percentage of people would go see them in a theater?

It's high art dramas he makes after all. Even if he and someone like Tarantino strike me as pretty populist in a way.

We could of course discuss how adaption becoming King in Hollywood has hurt things, but what is the difference between today's Amusement Park movies and those from the 80s and 90s?

 

[weezerspider]

They (Studios) have always needed blockbuster tent poles. The majority could be described exactly as Marty described comic book films.

They do provide funding for smaller films. We can talk about middle budget and original blockbuster films not being made but where's the money in Scorsese's specific projects? What percentage of people would go see them in a theater?

It's high art dramas he makes after all. Even if he and someone like Tarantino strike me as pretty populist in a way.

We could of course discuss how adaption becoming King in Hollywood has hurt things, but what is the difference between today's Amusement Park movies and those from the 80s and 90s?

You realize he’s just asking for there to be room for the table for everyone, right? Scorsese isn’t kicking anyone out of the table. Disney is. He’s even said he’s not complaining for himself. He named several young filmmakers who haven’t had the same opportunities he, Spielberg, De Palma, Coppola, Lucas etc had because of the state of the industry and it’s over-reliance on tent poles and fear of risk taking.

Also, Scorsese struggled to get financing most of his career. The big budget films he’s been able to do post-2000s are mostly because of GoodFellas being a staple on cable and it inspiring the Sopranos.

 

[Wheels]

You realize he’s just asking for there to be room for the table for everyone, right? Scorsese isn’t kicking anyone out of the table. Disney is. He’s even said he’s not complaining for himself. He named several young filmmakers who haven’t had the same opportunities he, Spielberg, De Palma, Coppola, Lucas etc had because of the state of the industry and it’s over-reliance on tent poles and fear of risk taking.

Also, Scorsese struggled to get financing most of his career. The big budget films he’s been able to do post-2000s are mostly because of GoodFellas being a staple on cable and it inspiring the Sopranos.

No he is just arbitrarily defining cinema as high art films and coming off elitist and exclusionary.

Superhero films are cinema. Every film that gets a theatrical release is. There's nothing in the definition that suggests higher art.

Studios have some money they can spend on other projects because of the Amusement Park rides. Now that Disney is focusing on streaming, and seemingly about to start producing content for Disney+ Star who knows the possibilities.

I'm not a huge fan of the comments personally.

I love the man's work but I don't know really? Why exactly is the word cinema defined this way by some? It's not the actual definition is it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Having said that, yes studios need to take more risks and focus less on IPs BUT we love established IP.

We didn't go see plenty of originals or brand new adaptions of work never brought to screen, but I do hate that all the new stuff is basically prestige films angling to get the studio awards or A24 or Blumhouse, sometimes not even Blumhouse.

 

[weezerspider]

No he is just arbitrarily defining cinema as high art films and coming off elitist and exclusionary.

Superhero films are cinema. Every film that gets a theatrical release is. There's nothing in the definition that suggests higher art.

Studios have some money they can spend on other projects because of the Amusement Park rides. Now that Disney is focusing on streaming, and seemingly about to start producing content for Disney+ Star who knows the possibilities.

I'm not a huge fan of the comments personally.

I love the man's work but I don't know really? Why exactly is the word cinema defined this way by some? It's not the actual definition is it? Maybe I'm wrong.

Having said that, yes studios need to take more risks and focus less on IPs BUT we love established IP.

We didn't go see plenty of originals or brand new adaptions of work never brought to screen, but I do hate that all the new stuff is basically prestige films angling to get the studio awards or A24 or Blumhouse, sometimes not even Blumhouse.

You are putting words in his mouth. Scorsese never said only art films are cinema. Scorsese has been a huge champion of genre films, especially horror films, telling David Letterman in an interview that horror films are his favorite films. There is an incredible piece written by one of Scorsese’s students back when he was a teacher at NYU and all the students wanted to make art films and Scorsese showed up in a cowboy hat and boots to show them John Ford Westerns. Scorsese’s Cape Fear remake and Shutter Island are both filled with homages to plenty of B-movies from the 1940s and 1950s, especially from the films of a Samuel Fuller, who was the king of genre films. Scorsese himself directed an exploitation film for Roger Corman. Even in regards to superhero films themselves, in the Decade Under The Influence documentary, Scorsese praises Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films. In the Criterion commentary track for Taxi Driver, Scorsese mentions Tim Burton’s (at the time of recording brand new) Batman film and compares Travis Bickle to Batman.

Scorsese isn’t calling out a genre. He’s calling out the corporate assembly line system that these films are made in. The reason he doesn’t consider them cinema or art is not because of their genre. He doesn’t consider them art because these films are not the creations of artists. They are the product of corporate managers hiring artists to color inside the lines. You don’t have to agree with that, but at least understand the point he’s making and that point has nothing to do with genre.

Funny enough Ava Duvernay turned down Black Panther because they told her how they were going to light the movie and the stunt team would direct the action. She was just there to... color in between the lines.

 

[CaptainWagner]

They (Studios) have always needed blockbuster tent poles. The majority could be described exactly as Marty described comic book films.

They do provide funding for smaller films. We can talk about middle budget and original blockbuster films not being made but where's the money in Scorsese's specific projects? What percentage of people would go see them in a theater?

It's high art dramas he makes after all. Even if he and someone like Tarantino strike me as pretty populist in a way.

We could of course discuss how adaption becoming King in Hollywood has hurt things, but what is the difference between today's Amusement Park movies and those from the 80s and 90s?

What hurts the most when discussing stuff like this is looking back to see what sort of movies USED to be able to dominate the box office. The Godfather was a tentpole. It was the top-grossing movie the year it came out. One year later, in 1973, the Top 3 movies of the year were The Exorcist, The Sting and American Graffiti. Even in the 90s, you had Forrest Gump and The Sixth Sense among the Top 10 films of the decade. But by the time we reach the 2000s, there's nothing. The closest to movies like that you get in the Top 50 even are The Da Vinci Code and Mamma Mia. Get to the 2010s and its just Bohemian Raphsody.

Place blame where you will, but over the course of the 70s to today, the ability for non-blockbuster films to succeed at the box office cratered. People stopped going to the theaters for anything but explosive actioners and kid's flicks. And this was happening well before streaming was a thing.

It's an endless, self-fulfilling cycle - audiences are drawn to the flashiest blockbuster, studio execs see this and only invest in marketing flashy blockbusters, and the cycle turns and turns. And as a lover of cinema, that's heart-breaking, because I really don't know how to stop it. Because it's not just affecting movies. American culture as a whole is becoming radically lazy, placing convenience and personal catering over everything else. It's the same thing killing small business and retail.

There has been some pushback towards these trends in other industries. Maybe the culture will curve back towards communal, shared experiences and "shopping small" will start to apply to Hollywood, too. We can only hope, I guess. Maybe, if we're lucky, movies like Scorsese's will start drawing crowds once again.

 

[Black Narcissus]

When you have Dicaprio and Pitt together in a Quentin Tarantino movie and it comes second to an animated live remake, hell, I'd sign that apple/netflix deal too. lol

What I found even more lame from the Disney/Marvel side was one of their big suits publicly stating he would call Marty to talk to him about it. Like what the hell was that going to do? There is nothing Disney can offer him at this point. I'm glad Marty hurt their ego and even more funny if folks took it personally.

 

[weezerspider]

When you have Dicaprio and Pitt together in a Quentin Tarantino movie and it comes second to an animated live remake, hell, I'd sign that apple/netflix deal too. lol

What I found even more lame from the Disney/Marvel side was one of their big suits publicly stating he would call Marty to talk to him about it. Like what the hell was that going to do? There is nothing Disney can offer him at this point. I'm glad Marty hurt their ego and even more funny if folks took it personally.

Yeah that was Bob Iger. Iger also said in the same interview that Black Panther was as good as anything Scorsese or Coppola made. Smh

The ultimate self-own is months after Scorsese called their movies theme parks, Disney hired the guy in charge of their theme parks to replace Iger and run their movies.

 

[Black Narcissus]

No but he can be passive aggressive about films that would probably make his projects possible. The ones we discuss most.

The film industry is a balance of art and commerce.

It's Show Business.

Tis' might be hyperbole or not and you might take offense to it, but I assure you its not personal. Simply truth.

Marty Scorsese can go up to you and unfold his little ladder, climb up and slap you or me on our face and you know the right response would be? Thank you, sir, may I have another. You don't have to like it, but its the goddamn truth. Now go get yo shine box.



Marty deserves 500 mill for whatever projects he wants now and whenever the bald lord in heaven comes for him, while also asking politely if its ok to do so.

 

[Wheels]

Tis' might be hyperbole or not and you might take offense to it, but I assure you its not personal. Simply truth.

Marty Scorsese can go up to you and unfold his little ladder, climb up and slap you or me on our face and you know the right response would be? Thank you, sir, may I have another. You don't have to like it, but its the goddamn truth. Now go get yo shine box.



Marty deserves 500 mill for whatever projects he wants now and whenever the bald lord in heaven comes for him, while also asking politely if its ok to do so.

My dude I get you.

It's not. like I wouldn't kiss the ground he walks on.

 

[Wheels]

You are putting words in his mouth. Scorsese never said only art films are cinema. Scorsese has been a huge champion of genre films, especially horror films, telling David Letterman in an interview that horror films are his favorite films. There is an incredible piece written by one of Scorsese’s students back when he was a teacher at NYU and all the students wanted to make art films and Scorsese showed up in a cowboy hat and boots to show them John Ford Westerns. Scorsese’s Cape Fear remake and Shutter Island are both filled with homages to plenty of B-movies from the 1940s and 1950s, especially from the films of a Samuel Fuller, who was the king of genre films. Scorsese himself directed an exploitation film for Roger Corman. Even in regards to superhero films themselves, in the Decade Under The Influence documentary, Scorsese praises Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films. In the Criterion commentary track for Taxi Driver, Scorsese mentions Tim Burton’s (at the time of recording brand new) Batman film and compares Travis Bickle to Batman.

Scorsese isn’t calling out a genre. He’s calling out the corporate assembly line system that these films are made in. The reason he doesn’t consider them cinema or art is not because of their genre. He doesn’t consider them art because these films are not the creations of artists. They are the product of corporate managers hiring artists to color inside the lines. You don’t have to agree with that, but at least understand the point he’s making and that point has nothing to do with genre.

Funny enough Ava Duvernay turned down Black Panther because they told her how they were going to light the movie and the stunt team would direct the action. She was just there to... color in between the lines.

I see, well in that sense he's correct, but I don't see anyone devaluating television to this extent. It's the same principal,

But know it's actually not a cinema in that sense. He is talking about TV though, not Amusement Parks.

Marvel has a showrunner.

If the case had been made better I doubt there would be much debate.

 

[weezerspider]

I see, well in that sense he's correct, but I don't see anyone devaluating television to this extent. It's the same principal,

But know it's actually not a cinema in that sense. He is talking about TV though, not Amusement Parks.

Marvel has a showrunner.

If the case had been made better I doubt there would be much debate.

Eh, that’s why certain TV is called Prestige Television because most TV is devalued. TV was never really considered art until HBO. Even now, is anyone calling NCIS art?

Also, in his defense, it wasn’t like he planned to make any kind of big statement. It was one harmless question in an interview. He didn’t even bring it up. He was directly asked. In his op-Ed explaining his thoughts after the blurb caused such controversy, he did essentially explain what I said.

I really think it was a controversy because websites knew that one short answer to a question that had nothing to do with the rest of the interview would be perfect click-bait. But yes, he could have explained it better upfront, but again, it wasn’t like he showed up at a podium expecting to make a statement on the subject. He was asked the question in a huge piece on The Irishman. I’d argue the question never even needed to be asked and was asked as a gotcha question expecting a juicy, controversial answer to help get clicks.


And yes, I 100% agree with your comment that Marvel showrunner. That’s not inherently a bad thing.

To me NCIS is art but so is the crap I gave my mama to put on the fridge. We don't get to pick and choose what art is. It's in an artistic medium.

 

[Wheels]

My crap finger paintings as a small child are art. The medium dictates classification not perceived quality of the work.

 

[weezerspider]

My crap finger paintings as a small child are art. The medium dictates classification not perceived quality of the work.

You edited out my whole last section. I guess we edited my post at the same time?

 

[Wheels]

I don't know how that happened. Sorry about that.

 

[weezerspider]

I don't know how that happened. Sorry about that.

All good. My final point was that, IMO, a “showrunner” approach has its pros and cons. I don’t think Marvel will ever make an absolutely terrible film with such strict quality control, but I also think such strict quality control creates a plateau of potential. It’s like McDonalds. It’s a minor miracle I can eat a Big Mac in two different countries and it basically tastes the same, but at the same time, in order to achieve that success, you’re simplifying what you’re making. You’re not going to get a gourmet meal at McDonalds. So it’s what you prefer. I honestly prefer more freedom for the filmmakers which will lead to some clunkers but also some really unique films versus consistent “hey that was fun”, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Wheels]

All good. My final point was that, IMO, a “showrunner” approach has its pros and cons. I don’t think Marvel will ever make an absolutely terrible film with such strict quality control, but I also think such strict quality control creates a plateau of potential. It’s like McDonalds. It’s a minor miracle I can eat a Big Mac in two different countries and it basically tastes the same, but at the same time, in order to achieve that success, you’re simplifying what you’re making. You’re not going to get a gourmet meal at McDonalds. So it’s what you prefer. I honestly prefer more freedom for the filmmakers which will lead to some clunkers but also some really unique films versus consistent “hey that was fun”, but that’s just my opinion.

As much as I love the MCU because it's consistently entertaining even I don't want Cinematic Universes in my heart of hearts, but if you're going to do it well, then the MCU has the best method.

If experiencing an artistic vision causes me to see something I despise and the MCU delivers nothing awful, sometimes great blockbusters, then what I'm I supposed to do with it?

Feige has his finger on the pulse. Fans trust him and the general audience likes the movies.

I'm never going to experience a The Dark Knight maybe but I also never expect other things I won't mention...

 

[Man in the Suit]

Martin Scorsese Confirms Killers of the Flower Moon Is Moving Full Steam Ahead with Seven-Month Shoot

 

[Boom]

Come through, Marty.

 

[Persona]

Reading the book and gotta give it to Leo to force the rewrite to change his role from White to Burkhart. That's brilliant.

McConaughey would be perfect for White.

No clue who they will cast for Mollie Burkhart but it has the potential to be the best female role in a Scorsese flick since Age of Innocence. And it will be played by a Native American.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

This movie is gonna be a beast.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Reading the book and gotta give it to Leo to force the rewrite to change his role from White to Burkhart. That's brilliant.

McConaughey would be perfect for White.

No clue who they will cast for Mollie Burkhart but it has the potential to be the best female role in a Scorsese flick since Age of Innocence. And it will be played by a Native American.

Scorsese's track record on women and minorities in his films is... not great. So I'm definitely anxious to see who gets cast/how Mollie and the rest of the Osage figures get portrayed.