|
Post by AQUA KEN! on Jul 18, 2022 1:21:14 GMT 1
"Legendary B-movie filmmaker Roger Corman has officially entered the Marvel debate.
The 96-year-old director and producer admitted to Paste that he has a “somewhat bad reaction, to be honest” toward the MCU, in part because he had “an option with Marvel to do one of their films, with Orion” years ago. Now semi-retired while still developing a remake of “Little Shop of Horrors” for Paramount, Corman admitted to having notes for what Marvel could do better. “I do think, actually, that they are extremely well made, and the special effects are just phenomenal. I think they’re good pictures,” Corman explained. “But if I have any quibble with them, it’s that…Jim Cameron, who started with me, when you see a big-budget effects film from Jim, you always recognize that the story comes first, and the special effects are only there to help the story. Whereas with Marvel, it sometimes feels like the special effects are the stars, and the story frankly can be filler between the special effects.” Corman summed up, “It could be improved if they followed the lead of Jim and worked more on their stories.”
Used to minimal budgets, Corman reflected on first funding “Little Shop of Horrors” with $35,000.
“The new one would be about $8 million!” Corman added, “The script is still being worked on, we’ve gone through two or three writers and the third writer has finally hit the mark I think.”
Meanwhile, James Cameron’s own “Avatar” universe is returning to the big screen to contend with the MCU. Cameron’s “Avatar: The Way of Water” opens in theaters December 16 and has a rumored budget of anywhere between $250 to $600 million.
Former Corman collaborators Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola previously slammed Marvel for being akin to “theme parks.” Scorsese said he tries not to watch Marvel movies since it’s “not cinema” and doesn’t “convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.”
Coppola later agreed: “When Martin Scorsese says that the Marvel pictures are not cinema, he’s right because we expect to learn something from cinema, we expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration…I don’t know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again,” the “Godfather” director stated. “Martin was kind when he said it’s not cinema. He didn’t say it’s despicable, which I just say it is.”
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jul 18, 2022 1:59:02 GMT 1
Apparently the Marvel project he was almost involved with was a Spider-Man movie. Doc Ock was the villain and Mary Jane was a Russian spy.
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jul 18, 2022 6:09:48 GMT 1
With James Cameron the story comes first... Has the man seen Avatar? Rip off job from start to finish when it comes to story. That movie was clearly made pure for the effects.
My God, how can anyone say that.
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Jul 18, 2022 6:28:50 GMT 1
Learn what? How to be more full of themselves?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2022 6:48:28 GMT 1
With James Cameron the story comes first... Has the man seen Avatar? Rip off job from start to finish when it comes to story. That movie was clearly made pure for the effects. My God, how can anyone say that. True. I like Avatar but what is it really famous for? The technical stuff lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2022 6:52:29 GMT 1
Learn what? How to be more full of themselves? Exactly, just sounds pretentious. Our films make you wiser...also there are definitely lessons you can take away from the mcu. The guy still seems bitter lol. I mean why do people like Iron Man so much or Cap? It must be the special effects...
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 18, 2022 15:39:35 GMT 1
I have tremendous respect for Roger Corman but he is incorrect in this statement:
"Jim Cameron, who started with me, when you see a big-budget effects film from Jim, you always recognize that the story comes first, and the special effects are only there to help the story. Whereas with Marvel, it sometimes feels like the special effects are the stars, and the story frankly can be filler between the special effects.”
Avatar was definitely about effects over story.
|
|
|
Post by Merv on Jul 18, 2022 15:44:59 GMT 1
The MCU gets so many people defensive and it's honestly just cringey at this point. It's such a thing right now for certain film fandoms to chalk MCU films up as the worst thing to cinema and prop up other movies no matter how poorly made they are just because they were made by 'real filmmakers' or whatever. As a fan of many different types of film its a baffling social media war to witness. If superheros aren't your cup of tea that's absolutely fine...but why the constant need to point at them and try and convince others they suck? I am a fan of some of the crappiest critically recieved movies ever and I've never felt the need to convince people theyre great...I know I like them. That's enough. Stuff like this just reeks of insecurity.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 18, 2022 19:51:01 GMT 1
The secret to Avatar is not its "story."
The story of a colonialist invader who falls in love with the princess from the opposing side and later 'goes native' isn't a story so much as a cliché. It's so overused as to almost be impervious to criticism.
Like Disney's Pocahontas, the story of Avatar can be characterized as both politically correct and politically incorrect. It's at turns sexist but somehow also feminist. The way it handles indigenous cultures is equal parts sensitive and suspect.
Where Cameron succeeds in Avatar is with world-building. Love it or hate it, Pandora is immersive. Cameron created a world with a complex ecosystem that is just short of what you expect from a novel regarding the level of detail. Pandora, a single moon of Polyphemus, has varied and strange biodiversity. I stopped counting the number of species in the movie at 40 and there were still more to go. Plus Pandora has a long and complicated history that starts well before the movie's first frame. It feels lived in. That's what drew audiences in, and the big gamble is that you'll want to see more of this world.
The MCU does world-building better than the vast majority of other popular franchises. They just need to decide whether they will go deeper into self-aware comedy and spectacle or attempt to make movies that are less deliberately winking at the audience about the inherent "silliness" of the genre.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Jones on Jul 19, 2022 2:10:23 GMT 1
The secret to Avatar is not its "story." The story of a colonialist invader who falls in love with the princess from the opposing side and later 'goes native' isn't a story so much as a cliché. It's so overused as to almost be impervious to criticism. Like Disney's Pocahontas, the story of Avatar can be characterized as both politically correct and politically incorrect. It's at turns sexist but somehow also feminist. The way it handles indigenous cultures is equal parts sensitive and suspect. Where Cameron succeeds in Avatar is with world-building. Love it or hate it, Pandora is immersive. Cameron created a world with a complex ecosystem that is just short of what you expect from a novel regarding the level of detail. Pandora, a single moon of Polyphemus, has varied and strange biodiversity. I stopped counting the number of species in the movie at 40 and there were still more to go. Plus Pandora has a long and complicated history that starts well before the movie's first frame. It feels lived in. That's what drew audiences in, and the big gamble is that you'll want to see more of this world. The MCU does world-building better than the vast majority of other popular franchises. They just need to decide whether they will go deeper into self-aware comedy and spectacle or attempt to make movies that are less deliberately winking at the audience about the inherent "silliness" of the genre. I guess we'll find out after Thor: Love and Thunder's final numbers.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 19, 2022 4:54:37 GMT 1
Cameron is least favorite director. Love Roger though.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 19, 2022 4:59:46 GMT 1
With James Cameron the story comes first... Has the man seen Avatar? Rip off job from start to finish when it comes to story. That movie was clearly made pure for the effects. My God, how can anyone say that. I saw Titanic in an historical preservation movie theater and my butt is still numb from the nostalgic experience.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 19, 2022 5:15:45 GMT 1
The MCU gets so many people defensive and it's honestly just cringey at this point. It's such a thing right now for certain film fandoms to chalk MCU films up as the worst thing to cinema and prop up other movies no matter how poorly made they are just because they were made by 'real filmmakers' or whatever. As a fan of many different types of film its a baffling social media war to witness. If superheros aren't your cup of tea that's absolutely fine...but why the constant need to point at them and try and convince others they suck? I am a fan of some of the crappiest critically recieved movies ever and I've never felt the need to convince people theyre great...I know I like them. That's enough. Stuff like this just reeks of insecurity. These types of fantasy films can connect with people in deep, personal ways realism movies no longer can. That accounts for the emotionalism attached to them. I try to keep my Marvel or other blockbuster fantastical narratives expectations lower than for other firms, especially from quality movie directors. But Thor 4 broke my heart. What is cinema? Cinema is moving pictures; originally at least, the illusion of motion using still images. And that’s it. Everything else is subjective commentary.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 19, 2022 15:26:51 GMT 1
The secret to Avatar is not its "story." The story of a colonialist invader who falls in love with the princess from the opposing side and later 'goes native' isn't a story so much as a cliché. It's so overused as to almost be impervious to criticism. Like Disney's Pocahontas, the story of Avatar can be characterized as both politically correct and politically incorrect. It's at turns sexist but somehow also feminist. The way it handles indigenous cultures is equal parts sensitive and suspect. Where Cameron succeeds in Avatar is with world-building. Love it or hate it, Pandora is immersive. Cameron created a world with a complex ecosystem that is just short of what you expect from a novel regarding the level of detail. Pandora, a single moon of Polyphemus, has varied and strange biodiversity. I stopped counting the number of species in the movie at 40 and there were still more to go. Plus Pandora has a long and complicated history that starts well before the movie's first frame. It feels lived in. That's what drew audiences in, and the big gamble is that you'll want to see more of this world. The MCU does world-building better than the vast majority of other popular franchises. They just need to decide whether they will go deeper into self-aware comedy and spectacle or attempt to make movies that are less deliberately winking at the audience about the inherent "silliness" of the genre. I guess we'll find out after Thor: Love and Thunder's final numbers. I'm not as disappointed in the film as most, but this is one of those situations where a good MCU film could have easily been great. Aarons gave them everything they needed on an uru metal platter, and they played most of it for laughs. It's funny to be disappointed in the same genre on both the big screen and on the page - knowing in both cases that it could and should be more. In the comics, my favorite superhero team has devolved into a group of isolationist, hedonistic narcissists who are more concerned with their next party than saving anyone. While more experimental and colorful, the films seem obsessed with showing you the moment where the hero has to go to the bathroom - in the middle of some decisive moment. Whether I stay or go now is up to the King, but it's been a hell of a ride either way.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 20, 2022 7:44:06 GMT 1
I guess we'll find out after Thor: Love and Thunder's final numbers. I'm not as disappointed in the film as most, but this is one of those situations where a good MCU film could have easily been great. Aarons gave them everything they needed on an uru metal platter, and they played most of it for laughs. It's funny to be disappointed in the same genre on both the big screen and on the page - knowing in both cases that it could and should be more. In the comics, my favorite superhero team has devolved into a group of isolationist, hedonistic narcissists who are more concerned with their next party than saving anyone. While more experimental and colorful, the films seem obsessed with showing you the moment where the hero has to go to the bathroom - in the middle of some decisive moment. Whether I stay or go now is up to the King, but it's been a hell of a ride either way. This may be due do the Disney villain affect. As such, they cannot let the villain indulge in too much depravity, but he/she tends to become the butt of a joke. We never saw Gorr butchering any gods other than his own to empathize with his growing madness. Right there, Kevin, is the narrative thread: Iconoclasm, not the love story element. The busting down sacred social icons and ideals is Stan Lee’s ethos. Lee was anti-ideology. But the Disney simulacra that could have been parodied to good comic commentary affect, but wasn’t utilized, but paid homage to. That scene with the kids fighting. Plus, the wasting of the Gorr character and Christian Bale as an actor…. And I when I heard there are 2 more hours of film on the cutting room floor and we didn’t get a healthy villain, then something got out hand. Waititi got it in Raganrok.
|
|