Marvel Comics on Film

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#101 Post by Nasir007 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:50 pm

Brian C wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:42 pm
Nasir007 wrote:Auteur theory is A theory. Like Standard Model. Like General Relativity. None of them work in absolutely every conceivable scenario. But the theories work.

The auteur theory is one way to look at cinema. There can be others. People will have a different view of it etc etc.

There aren't any right answers here. Just answers.
You’re describing a similarity to the theory pf general relativism, not general relativity.
General Relativity is a widely recognized and accepted theory. Wtf is general relativism?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#102 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:00 pm

I think he means that what you're talking about is relativism, ie. that judgements are relative to the individuals, situations, and frameworks in which something is being interpreted. Which is quite a bit different from the theory of relativity, or really scientific theories in general, which is/are not meant to be switched out for other theories based on taste, context, etc. The point of an established scientific theory is that it can withstand repeated testing and explains things better than any competing theories.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#103 Post by Big Ben » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:08 pm

I was going to say what Mr. Sausage typed but he said it way more eloquently than I could. Theory when used in scientific context means that it's supported by evidence that's been provided by repeat testing. Germ Theory of Disease, The effects of gravity and most importantly the scariest of them all, evolution. The conflation of the word theory between science and the arts has created some issues as some people feel it's appropriate to dismiss empirical evidence because it's "Just a Theory". Not the case as I doubt many people will attempt to fly by jumping off a high rise to test gravity or will attempt to disprove germ theory by drinking bad water or using used needles.

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#104 Post by Nasir007 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:33 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:00 pm
I think he means that what you're talking about is relativism, ie. that judgements are relative to the individuals, situations, and frameworks in which something is being interpreted. Which is quite a bit different from the theory of relativity, or really scientific theories in general, which is/are not meant to be switched out for other theories based on taste, context, etc. The point of an established scientific theory is that it can withstand repeated testing and explains things better than any competing theories.
My point of comparison was much narrower as I indicated in my post. Standard Model and General Relativity are ways to explain the world. But they don't explain everything. There are cases where they don't work. There are competing theories. Not everyone buys every aspect of the theories. But they are good and useful theories.

Just like the auteur theory. It is one way to look at cinema. But it doesn't explain all cinema. There are cases when it doesn't work. There are competing theories of cinema. Not everyone buys every aspect of auteur theory. But it's a good and useful theory.

The point being - a theory is infact a theory - a construct, one way out of many of explaining something. And auteur theory is obviously a theory.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#105 Post by knives » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:42 pm

But that's just not true.

User avatar
soundchaser
No longer chasing skirts
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#106 Post by soundchaser » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:45 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:33 pm
Standard Model and General Relativity are ways to explain the world.
I think they're ways to describe particle forces and the perception of gravity, respectively, so I'm not sure your metaphor really holds.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#107 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:55 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:33 pm
Mr Sausage wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:00 pm
I think he means that what you're talking about is relativism, ie. that judgements are relative to the individuals, situations, and frameworks in which something is being interpreted. Which is quite a bit different from the theory of relativity, or really scientific theories in general, which is/are not meant to be switched out for other theories based on taste, context, etc. The point of an established scientific theory is that it can withstand repeated testing and explains things better than any competing theories.
My point of comparison was much narrower as I indicated in my post. Standard Model and General Relativity are ways to explain the world. But they don't explain everything. There are cases where they don't work. There are competing theories. Not everyone buys every aspect of the theories. But they are good and useful theories.

Just like the auteur theory. It is one way to look at cinema. But it doesn't explain all cinema. There are cases when it doesn't work. There are competing theories of cinema. Not everyone buys every aspect of auteur theory. But it's a good and useful theory.

The point being - a theory is infact a theory - a construct, one way out of many of explaining something. And auteur theory is obviously a theory.
Yes, you were right when you indicated that even scientific theories are not absolutes, and you're right to say that theories are constructs mean to explain the available evidence.

But collocating scientific theories with artistic ones like this kind of muddies things. Artistic theories are interpretive frameworks and admit of very little objective verification. Scientific theories are more rigorous, are held to a much higher standard (replicability, predictability), and are meant to supersede each other. One can trade out artistic theories based on taste, interest, context, popularity, or whim. Not so much with scientific theories. No one switches between the heliocentric and geocentric theories the way they might between Marxist and New Historicist theories, say. Scientific theories tend towards the best single explanation, not the interpretive bounty of many of them.

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#108 Post by Nasir007 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:01 pm

Science is mostly objective. Art is mostly subjective. To the extent the term 'theory' even applies to art, it would never be an apples to apples comparison if that is what people are seeking. A theory of art by the very nature of what it seeks to explain will be subjective. And such is the auteur theory.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#109 Post by Brian C » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:02 pm

Nasir007 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:33 pm
My point of comparison was much narrower as I indicated in my post. Standard Model and General Relativity are ways to explain the world. But they don't explain everything. There are cases where they don't work. There are competing theories. Not everyone buys every aspect of the theories. But they are good and useful theories.

Just like the auteur theory. It is one way to look at cinema. But it doesn't explain all cinema. There are cases when it doesn't work. There are competing theories of cinema. Not everyone buys every aspect of auteur theory. But it's a good and useful theory.

The point being - a theory is infact a theory - a construct, one way out of many of explaining something. And auteur theory is obviously a theory.
I think what you actually mean is that your point of comparison was considerably more broad, not narrower. Because the more narrowly you apply the comparison, the more it breaks down. But in a broadest possible sense - e.g., all those things you mentioned are referred to as "theories" - well, I guess I have to admit that that's hard to argue with.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#110 Post by movielocke » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:38 pm

I think the above explanation of how the marvel system utilizes the auteur system is the best one. In my personal experience, the director-as-figurehead essence of the auteur system is a useful point of leverage and publicity to further consciously craft the narrative around a film/shows lifecycle (especially true for awardspornfilms). Many times a producer has spent years developing a script and hires a director relatively late, the director makes light suggestions, and then becomes the go to approvals decision maker for if that wall should be yellow or taupe, if that costume should be navy or black etc etc. crucially decisions that will cost real money have to go through the producers with the actual power but the director is very consciously promoted as an integral auteur of the film, and it’s true to an extent, but it’s also a role with inherent cause celeb that is necessarily exploited on behalf of the final product.

And a big part of why this director celeb centric system is still used in Hollywood is because “follow the money” directors are paid a lot, so with $$ goes the credit.

Star system where the star has some amount of input into their vehicles is similar.

So I wind up frequently thinking of director info like star info: as just another characteristic finely developed and packaged with the overall commercial product of the actual movie.

:-p

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#111 Post by Nasir007 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:22 pm

I don't think Hollywood cinema is general is a good example of auteur cinema. I would look to European cinema or other international cinema. I might even say auteur cinema in say France might be the majority of it rather than exception. It does not just arrive from most of them writing their own stuff but from the fact that they do to large extent control their movies more than Hollywood directors do. Final cut is I think I right enshrined in France for the director (I think though I am sure someone will correct me on this front just like on others).

Take someone like Haneke, even a speck of dust appear in a random frame is directed by him. They also have smaller crews, and smaller budgets which means they have more control.

Hollywood only truly allows the star directors absolute control and even then they might defer too much to the stars.

Someone like say Lars von Trier gives a rat's ass about what the actors thinks or feels. Hollywood is more accommodating of stars which dilutes the auteur sheen a little bit.

The auteur construct definitely serves us well as an analysis tool for cinema. But its more usefully applied for non-American cinema than American cinema.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#112 Post by movielocke » Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:12 pm

Nasir007 wrote:I don't think Hollywood cinema is general is a good example of auteur cinema. I would look to European cinema or other international cinema.
Other than blatantly moving the goalposts I don’t disagree with any of your post all that much.

However your post did remind me of back in uni when I was taking a philosophy class and a cinema class at the same time. And when studying the Cahiers kiddos, I remember being suddenly struck that the entire ethos they espoused wasnt sincere but just just a cynical tactic using revolutionary’s tactics to empower and elevate themselves from their powerless serf status. :-p

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#113 Post by FrauBlucher » Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:15 pm

Are you trying to wake up the dragon

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#114 Post by movielocke » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:35 pm

FrauBlucher wrote:Are you trying to wake up the dragon
I don’t necessarily think that anymore, but to an undergrad making bad cognitive connections, it seemed like a Nietzschean will to power

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#115 Post by Gregory » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:55 pm

movielocke wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:12 pm
the Cahiers kiddos
Someone should make this as a show like Jim Henson's Muppet Babies but with Truffaut, Godard, et al. instead of the Muppets, and Henri Langlois would only be shown from the waist down like Nanny.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#116 Post by movielocke » Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:46 pm

Gregory wrote:
movielocke wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:12 pm
the Cahiers kiddos
Someone should make this as a show like Jim Henson's Muppet Babies but with Truffaut, Godard, et al. instead of the Muppets, and Henri Langlois would only be shown from the waist down like Nanny.
Marvel presents “the cineastes de Notre Tempes”

Nasir007
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:58 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#117 Post by Nasir007 » Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:17 pm


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#118 Post by domino harvey » Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:24 pm

I thought these new comments were particularly strong
Martin Scorsese wrote:If I could push a button and erase them [Marvel movies] from the face of the earth, I would smash it so hard my hand would break. [...] I wish Kevin Feige had gotten sick in the 80s so that he could have taken some of that tainted Tylenol and spared us from this collection of caped schmucks invading our screens. [...] I don't wish death on any actor, but if you're playing a guy who wears a light-up suit and one of those little half mask things, and after filming you get hit by a bus or slip and fall in the shower and break your neck, that cinema karma s---'s on you, bro.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#119 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:42 pm

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's take puts this whole thing to rest as far as I'm concerned.

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#120 Post by Murdoch » Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:46 pm

It's strange that Scorsese doesn't view Marvel movies as "narrative films" given how much of their appeal relies on them all being part of one overarching narrative

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#121 Post by Brian C » Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:55 pm

That's brilliant, domino. I hope you decide to re-post in some Marvel fanatic site just for the spectacle of watching heads explode Kingsman-style amid a rabid chorus of "HOW DARE HE!!!!". If you do, lemme know.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#122 Post by Finch » Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:56 pm

Not a single one of the MCU films is a great film and even the best (for me, Doctor Strange and the first Guardians) still feel hamstrung by the requirements each of these films has to meet. I'll say upfront that superheroes are generally not for me though something like the first Incredibles does win me over. I think once Marvel and Disney allow a filmmaker to say "I won't give you what you think you want, I'll give you what you never realised you wanted" and really allow the film to think for itself and be itself without having to adhere to checklist stuff like ties to previous films and post-end credit scenes, and to be more adventurous in the visuals (to be fair, Doctor Strange does some of that and I hear Ragnarok isn't flatly lit like most of their other films), then they could be on to something that's an all-timer and not just falling in between pleasantly entertaining but already forgotten by the time you get to your car, and tedious.

So, I'm much more sympathetic to Scorsese's stance than the MCU crowd but he's also right in that we need to support the smaller, quieter films when they open in theaters.

Post Reply