The author Martin Scorsese pointed out in his argument why Marvel is not regarded as a movie theater or in a sense not worthy of its fame. One of the author’s points is that Marvel is a commercial product and does not have the enlightenment required by movies. He pointed out in the article: “They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted, and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.” This sentence makes me wonder because is the movie he made purely for charity? I believe that there is no movie that does not want to get a good box office after it is released. Every movie has invested a huge amount of money in the early stage, so the income after the movie is released is reasonable. Marvel movies should not be criticized for this. In addition, he also mentioned that the series of blockbusters are now the first choice in many places. Some of the points he pointed out were jealous, such as: “It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system.” “Except for franchising Apart from movies, there is no other opportunity to show other movies on the big screen.” Wait. In this era of the prevalence of technological networks, it is a very common phenomenon that some viewers are accustomed to watching movies on media platforms. It is also understandable that theaters screen movies to cater to market conditions.
Second, Martin Scorsese proposed that Marvel movies do not meet the definition of traditional movies. He pointed out: “What’s not there is a revelation, mystery or emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.” But the facts are not In this way, Marvel movies contain a lot of spiritual lessons. For example, the article Spiritual Lessons From the Marvel Cinematic Universe stated: “In the newest MCU feature film, Captain Marvel comes to realize that what’s she been told about her enemy isn’t true. Don’t judge a person by his or her appearance. Don’t listen to gossip about others. Sometimes, it’s hard to know the enemy. Pay attention to their actions, not just their words.” These contents are all spiritual education to the audience. Therefore, it is not so subjective to think that Marvel movies are not movies. Martin Scorsese’s point of view is obviously biased against Marvel movies. Even if he does not approve of Marvel movies from the perspective of a director, you cannot deny that it is a success. You can dislike it, but you can’t be prejudiced about it. As Eric Kohn quoted in the debate: “It’s like asking Picasso to assess Banksy: One might have an opinion about the other’s work, but it’s hard to imagine why it would matter any more than anyone else weighing in.” Eric Kohn argued in the debate that changing the most obvious definition of film requires revision. Marvel movies belong to a certain type of film. Although it incorporates modern technology, it does not mean that Marvel movies are meaningless.
“Spiritual Lessons From the Marvel Cinematic Universe” 24, April 2019 https://www.ulc.org/ulc-blog/spiritual-lessons-from-the-marvel-cinematic-universe
Eric Khon, 23, October 2019 “Marvel Movies Vs. Cinema: Why Martin Scorsese and Others Should Sit Out This Debate”, IndieWire https://www.indiewire.com/2019/10/scorsese-marvel-movies-vs-cinema-debate-1202183984/