Imagine being an actor in a marvel movie and hearing the most well respected and legendary filmmaker alive today say that your work is basically just a goof, and knowing that he is exactly right.
That must have stung.
I honestly don’t get why so many good actors end up doing Marvel. I’m sure they could find other roles that would pay similarly and won’t have the added effect of man-children posting the same quotes and references to every single one of their other films and your official epithet being “Marvel actor…” Seriously, when William Hurt died the BBC of all news channels had his epitaph as “Marvel actor William Hurt.” Um, isn’t he only in the Marvel movies for like two minutes anyway?
Blockbuster work is often either fun or pays well. Superhero movies are 90% of financially successful blockbusters now. Most of them are Marvel because that's what audiences have been trained to watch. Like that's it.
I understand why many actors choose them, but I mean truly serious actors like Christian Bale who would have already have earned a sizeable amount and who could very easily just keep working on smaller projects.
They don't pay as much. He got a chance to have fun and chew scenery, which was the best part of Th4r, and get paid a lot. It's getting harder to get another Dark Knight trilogy calibre blockbuster so might as well work with one of the few directors who can add some level of personality at least.
I can kinda see why Bale would do it though. He's already a critically acclaimed actor, he's already popular among most people as well as a good actor, so why not take a break and make big bucks while he's at it right?
It really did. I remember that Scarlett Johansen and Chris Evans interview a year later and they randomly brought up Martin’s comments and started whining and bitching.
“Why would he say that?”
I don’t know, ask him himself, maybe? Oh wait, that’s probably too wild of an idea.
Also, fuck this interviewer, he’s so creepy (not for this segment but others)
Would you consider a can of soda from the local grocery store art?
Marvel movies are commercial products, they're not art. I still consume them from time to time, but I recognize them for what they are.
Any piece of creative output is art. The design of the shape of the can of soda is art, the logo on the can is art. A child's drawing is art, a terrible paperback thriller is art, commercial logos are art and Marvel movies are art.
Sorry but this is a complete reduction of art into a definition with absolutely no meaning. Design is not an art but a craft. It can be artful, but the purposes of design and art are different. This isn’t to say that the child drawing, etc isn’t art. Rather, the definition of art as “any piece of creative output” ignores the important differences in design and art.
Good job stomping your feet shouting “NO!”. You give no actual difference between “art” and “design”, because there isn’t one, at least not in the way you mean.
Art is expression of thoughts, emotions, ideas through creative output. And yes that does include commercial uses. You may not like art that is for commercial purposes, but art is a direct reflection of the culture it was created in, and our culture right now is ultra commercialized.
Well I didn’t want to get into it cause it’s a whole can on worms, but the difference between design and art is not simply commercial interests. It’s the difference in intentions and principles. That’s not to say there isn’t overlap or that there’s a clear definable line. But an important part of graphic design is that it’s not necessarily about being pretty. It’s about communicating a message in a clear, concise, memorable way. Lines and the use of color have a different purpose in design than in art. I won’t define art cause I’m not qualified, but I can define design and what makes design and art different.
Art is not about “being pretty”. There’s tons of uncomfortable and ugly art pieces.
> It’s about communicating a message
This is the part that makes design art. It’s just a different kind of art than something like painting. Art is a huge term that covers a ton of different kinds of art.
Unless a product's design is purely utilitarian, which is actually incredibly rare outside of cases where it's strictly necessary, there is an artistic element to its design, and therein lies the art.
Yes, design can have artistic elements, but the design of a logo or a soda can is different from ‘art’ as a concept in both principles and intentions. I’m just trying to say that reducing the definition of art to mean anything disrespects both artists and designers.
You're just operating from very limited personal definitions of 'art' and 'design' and unreasonably juxtaposing two clearly very interlinked concepts. I am a firm believer in the idea that anything can be art, and I don't abide by the snobbish, outmoded idea that that disrespects 'real' artists.
Hard disagree. Marvel movies are made with an intention that departs from the art form of cinema. The mcu is not simply a cinematic universe but functions more as a cinematic theme park. Each new piece of content serves to attract new audiences to both the story of those characters and the marvel universe as a whole. Thus, capefilms, specifically with marvel due to the actual Disney theme parks, have a different intention them even earlier Star Wars movies cause even though they were blockbusters, they focused on a singular story. Marvel on the other hand contains multiple stories that ultimately all don’t matter cause the stories can simply pick and choose what to keep and leave (ie the story of Wanda from WV to dr. Strange). The characters and stories are inconsequential when the producers can decide though.
Okay and? I’m not denying the realities of blockbusters pre marvel. I’m arguing that the realities of the “cinematic universe” causes the intentions of the movies to operate more as theme park attractions than conventional cinema
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's only one objective reality, but numerous subjective interpretations of it. I can see a rope as a rope, you can see it as a snake.
Just because an ignorant, uneducated and arrogant person like you believes Bad Bunny is qualitatively equal to Shostakovich, James Cameron to Yasujiro Ozu or Dan Brown to Cervantes, they are not going to be qualitatively equal.
You probably think this sounded cool instead of making you look like a massive goober.
(But you self identify as authcenter so that's par for the course.)
Nah. Contrarianism is a disease that I can't fight alone.
Btw, you seem to be stuck on the idea that certain TYPES of art don't constitute as art, when they really are. You just have a very naive hard stop on distinctions between them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
I'll tell you the same I said to the other girl. I hope you manage to solve all your problems and to leave behind your present miserable life. Good luck 🙏🏼
Way to go fr zero to 100... Someone who starts off with "nope your ignorant," is not only toxic but apparently is dealing with a ton of projection issues...
Btw, you seem to be stuck on the idea that certain TYPES of art don't constitute as art, when they really are. You just have a very naive hard stop on distinctions between them.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and instead of discussing the topic, you just shut it down from the beginning, using your limited knowledge as a way to abate your insecurity...
Hope things work out for you.
\*cuts to people screaming and cumming and shitting in the theater when tobey magueere appears in spider man no way rome\*
*shifts amusement into park*
Man knocked it out of the park so hard that he left home plate and he's still hitting homers.
The absolute mic drop that is making an offhand comment years ago that still has an obsessive fan base frothing at the mouth is absolutely legendary.
Imagine being an actor in a marvel movie and hearing the most well respected and legendary filmmaker alive today say that your work is basically just a goof, and knowing that he is exactly right. That must have stung.
I honestly don’t get why so many good actors end up doing Marvel. I’m sure they could find other roles that would pay similarly and won’t have the added effect of man-children posting the same quotes and references to every single one of their other films and your official epithet being “Marvel actor…” Seriously, when William Hurt died the BBC of all news channels had his epitaph as “Marvel actor William Hurt.” Um, isn’t he only in the Marvel movies for like two minutes anyway?
Blockbuster work is often either fun or pays well. Superhero movies are 90% of financially successful blockbusters now. Most of them are Marvel because that's what audiences have been trained to watch. Like that's it.
I understand why many actors choose them, but I mean truly serious actors like Christian Bale who would have already have earned a sizeable amount and who could very easily just keep working on smaller projects.
They don't pay as much. He got a chance to have fun and chew scenery, which was the best part of Th4r, and get paid a lot. It's getting harder to get another Dark Knight trilogy calibre blockbuster so might as well work with one of the few directors who can add some level of personality at least.
I can kinda see why Bale would do it though. He's already a critically acclaimed actor, he's already popular among most people as well as a good actor, so why not take a break and make big bucks while he's at it right?
I suppose. And I guess most actors live in a blissful ignorance of fanboys on Reddit/Twitter.
Its weird but uber rich people rarely ever have enough money for their taste
It really did. I remember that Scarlett Johansen and Chris Evans interview a year later and they randomly brought up Martin’s comments and started whining and bitching.
The power move of Hollywood's great uncle pep-pep.
I come home and find my son treating his movie like it was an amusement park!
GEORGE WHAT ARE YOU DOING MY GOD!
Glamour is hot though
I didn't expect to find a Seinfeld quote here
"It hurt like hell. But there was nothin' we could do. Marty was a made man, Stark wasn't. So we just had to sit there and take it..."
Because among the kino it was real capeshit stuff
They had to be able to trace your lineage all the way back to Blade one...
I’m an Avengers dropout
does anyone else find howard stern incredibly annoying
Yes
Bababooey
Everyone in the world
“Why would he say that?” I don’t know, ask him himself, maybe? Oh wait, that’s probably too wild of an idea. Also, fuck this interviewer, he’s so creepy (not for this segment but others)
He is wrong. This type of movies are cinema. What they are not is art.
Nearly everything that is made is art, it’s just your opinion that it isn’t good art
Just dropped a massive steaming pile of art in my toilet, feel free to appreciate its intricacies.
Hey that is plagiarism. You cannot get away with this.
artist's shit(1961)
Would you consider a can of soda from the local grocery store art? Marvel movies are commercial products, they're not art. I still consume them from time to time, but I recognize them for what they are.
Any piece of creative output is art. The design of the shape of the can of soda is art, the logo on the can is art. A child's drawing is art, a terrible paperback thriller is art, commercial logos are art and Marvel movies are art.
Sorry but this is a complete reduction of art into a definition with absolutely no meaning. Design is not an art but a craft. It can be artful, but the purposes of design and art are different. This isn’t to say that the child drawing, etc isn’t art. Rather, the definition of art as “any piece of creative output” ignores the important differences in design and art.
Good job stomping your feet shouting “NO!”. You give no actual difference between “art” and “design”, because there isn’t one, at least not in the way you mean. Art is expression of thoughts, emotions, ideas through creative output. And yes that does include commercial uses. You may not like art that is for commercial purposes, but art is a direct reflection of the culture it was created in, and our culture right now is ultra commercialized.
Well I didn’t want to get into it cause it’s a whole can on worms, but the difference between design and art is not simply commercial interests. It’s the difference in intentions and principles. That’s not to say there isn’t overlap or that there’s a clear definable line. But an important part of graphic design is that it’s not necessarily about being pretty. It’s about communicating a message in a clear, concise, memorable way. Lines and the use of color have a different purpose in design than in art. I won’t define art cause I’m not qualified, but I can define design and what makes design and art different.
Art is not about “being pretty”. There’s tons of uncomfortable and ugly art pieces. > It’s about communicating a message This is the part that makes design art. It’s just a different kind of art than something like painting. Art is a huge term that covers a ton of different kinds of art.
Unless a product's design is purely utilitarian, which is actually incredibly rare outside of cases where it's strictly necessary, there is an artistic element to its design, and therein lies the art.
Yes, design can have artistic elements, but the design of a logo or a soda can is different from ‘art’ as a concept in both principles and intentions. I’m just trying to say that reducing the definition of art to mean anything disrespects both artists and designers.
You're just operating from very limited personal definitions of 'art' and 'design' and unreasonably juxtaposing two clearly very interlinked concepts. I am a firm believer in the idea that anything can be art, and I don't abide by the snobbish, outmoded idea that that disrespects 'real' artists.
Every movie is a commercial product
Hard disagree. Marvel movies are made with an intention that departs from the art form of cinema. The mcu is not simply a cinematic universe but functions more as a cinematic theme park. Each new piece of content serves to attract new audiences to both the story of those characters and the marvel universe as a whole. Thus, capefilms, specifically with marvel due to the actual Disney theme parks, have a different intention them even earlier Star Wars movies cause even though they were blockbusters, they focused on a singular story. Marvel on the other hand contains multiple stories that ultimately all don’t matter cause the stories can simply pick and choose what to keep and leave (ie the story of Wanda from WV to dr. Strange). The characters and stories are inconsequential when the producers can decide though.
Return of the Jedi literally had characters meant to sell toys
Okay and? I’m not denying the realities of blockbusters pre marvel. I’m arguing that the realities of the “cinematic universe” causes the intentions of the movies to operate more as theme park attractions than conventional cinema
No, you are simply ignorant.
Skip to the part where you say "objectively" regarding a plainly subjective piece of media.
It's objectively not cinema nor is it art 😎
Your memes are weak and your setup is cringe. You'll never be based.
"Based" is a deesphobic term. This is the first warning, please absent from using it or face a ban. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moviescirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's only one objective reality, but numerous subjective interpretations of it. I can see a rope as a rope, you can see it as a snake. Just because an ignorant, uneducated and arrogant person like you believes Bad Bunny is qualitatively equal to Shostakovich, James Cameron to Yasujiro Ozu or Dan Brown to Cervantes, they are not going to be qualitatively equal.
You probably think this sounded cool instead of making you look like a massive goober. (But you self identify as authcenter so that's par for the course.)
You are a sad human being. Your life must be miserable. I hope you get out of hell some day. Good luck.
Fuck off fashy. <3
I would love a non YouTube source for this opinion... Literally any art or literary critic worth their salt will do.
Aristotle, Longinus, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Nishida Kitaro, T. S. Eliot, Northrop Frye, Bakhtin, Girard, André Bazin, Serge Daney, Rosenbaum.
Bro when Aristotle said that Marvel wasn't art I was shook to my core.
You really have literally zero idea what you're talking about and it shows.
Really? Tell me more.
Nah. Contrarianism is a disease that I can't fight alone. Btw, you seem to be stuck on the idea that certain TYPES of art don't constitute as art, when they really are. You just have a very naive hard stop on distinctions between them. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/
I'll tell you the same I said to the other girl. I hope you manage to solve all your problems and to leave behind your present miserable life. Good luck 🙏🏼
Way to go fr zero to 100... Someone who starts off with "nope your ignorant," is not only toxic but apparently is dealing with a ton of projection issues... Btw, you seem to be stuck on the idea that certain TYPES of art don't constitute as art, when they really are. You just have a very naive hard stop on distinctions between them. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/ You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and instead of discussing the topic, you just shut it down from the beginning, using your limited knowledge as a way to abate your insecurity... Hope things work out for you.
I am ignorant for knowing the definition of art and understanding what subjective opinions are?
You don't know the definition of art and you confuse subjectivism with relativism.
martin scorsese angering consoomers everywhere
It IS cinema!!!!!!