What, he hasn't even seen them and he's judging them?

Who does this guy think he is?

"I may not know cinema, but I know what isn't even if I don't see it."
—Martin Scorsese

He did say he tried . I know plenty of people that think the same thing.

Sounds like someone is jealous.

Marvel movies need more f words apparently.

He's probably right but then again who gives a rat's ass.

Bout time someone had the balls to say it.

It’s not by his definition of the term, they’re not high art, but they don’t have to be.

A really good burger doesn’t have to be a steak.

Using the term “ theme parks” kind of makes it sound like a jab at Disney. Haven’t some of the directors on Starwars and Marvel projects had trouble with the head office?

Scorsese (among others) is still upset that his style of cinema didn't become as popular with the public as the blockbuster model pioneered by Spielberg and Lucas. Scorsese and some of his peers wanted to be the U.S. equivalent of the French auteurs...but it didn't catch on. They've never recovered from the shock.

Perhaps, but he's had quite an enviable career. I don't think his comments are as harsh as people make them out to be.

I mean, I absolutely love the Marvel movies, I think they're great entertainment. But they're not art films and they don't need to be. Do we really put the likes of Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy alongside movies like Citizen Kane, 2001, Casablanca, The Godfather, Raging Bull, etc.? Is Captain America: Civil War really trying to do the same things as Hotel Rwanda or Schindler's List? And he even added, "as well made as they are," showing that he considers them well made.

I really like 80s pop music but I'm not going to act like they belong alongside Beethoven's Fifth or anything, y'know?

I agree.

I think people who consider anything art are always going to behave as if their take on things is superior. It's the conceit of being an artist as compared to a craftsman or whatever. They can't accept Jack Kirby's work as art that belongs in a gallery but they can accept Roy Lichtenstein's plagiarism of his and other people's work as art that's worthy of being in their exclusive gallery, etc. Their opinion is inherently more refined than anyone else's. Just ask them, they'll tell you so. Lichtenstein's work is seen as being ironic, or postmodern, or pop-art (or whatever) so it's acceptable in that context. Fandom in general is similar in its snootiness (and disdain of outsiders) who don't enjoy or understand whatever they're a fan of, etc.

It's no surprise a guy like him wouldn't like the MCU. I'm not saying he's a terrible director or anything, just that his generation of film-school graduates have never gotten over the fact that their work didn't become as beloved as things like Jaws, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc. They don't like to admit that they want that level of success, but their response to anything that does is to make light of it.

I think there were a bunch of guys in the early 70's who saw themselves as being part of the next big thing, but who were fundamentally out of step with the actual zeitgeist. They've never managed to accept this fact.

Simon is right. Martin is a poopy butt.

I did like After Hours. I haven't watched it again, though, since it first came out.
I've watched never every Marvel movie at least three times each.

I'll see if I can find After Hours on DVD for cheap on eBay.

There's always been this thing that sets my teeth on edge about artists - or should I say artistes; they seem to be both snobbish and disdainful of pop culture, and at the same time desperate for mass adoration, and the fame and fortune and everything (we thank you all) that goes with it. Marty's a great director, and makes great films, but he's not going to be able to change the fact that by and large, the public prefers Michael Bay.

Oh - and one other nasty piece of irony; sometimes, these artistic, tempermental souls actually hit the public zeitgeist, they blow up into the stratosphere, and it absolutely destroys them. I've seen it a lot in music, but also think it impacted the Wachowski sisters, with the Matrix.

Jesus, what crybabies. Poor James Gunn is weeping tears of real blood and forging humanity's uncreated conscience in the smitty of his soul with the Guardians series, and mean Marty Scorsese can't even bother to catch up on all 45 hours of the MCU to date before concluding science fiction beat-'em-ups are not his cup of tea.

Is this what John Byrne called "Red Sweater Syndrome"? Gunn, Gillen and fanboys everywhere sure are jumping to take specific offense at nonspecific criticism without considering the possibility Scorsese might not even know Gunn's films are part of the MCU at all, if he's even aware of them. For that matter, given my experience with people approaching 80, he may be talking about Blade or Batman Forever when he says Marvel, not that I think it makes any difference to his overall point.

It's not quite Red Sweater Syndrome (RSS), but it is the other side of the critical versus popular success coin - these guys who make great popcorn movies, and work just as hard as directors, or actors, (or musicians, or whatever), but don't get the critical acclaim feel slighted anytime someone takes a shot (direct or not) at stuff they do, because they are sensitive about it. It's the director who puts "based on the graphic novel" in their credits, instead of "based on the comics", because they're trying to elevate their funny books work to high art, and are vaguely ashamed about the fact that they're not making the next Raging Bull, or Mean Streets, or Chinatown.

RSS is about being offended for things that don't apply to you at all; it's gotten to be a lot more serious in today's culture, and UNWAN, so I won't go into it further

Does he really think Blade is a Marvel property? Jeez, what a dumbass.

There was also an ALF comic book put out by Marvel.