Do you get feisty when people say marvel products aren't high art?

Alot of art films are actually very cynically made, as in the director puts in shit he knows tends to get awards and acclaim (gritty, about disability, etc).

She's just acknowledging that film snobs look down on popular things.

It's a joke about how Marvel gets snubbed every year because it's Marvel

>Backend programming
Kek you backend faggots can't even juggle eight frameworks or use a language that isn't from the 80s, front-end is where all the innovation actually happens

Attached: literal rust tranny.jpg (975x975, 90.04K)

Why would I? It's not high art. It's a popcorn flick you can turn off your brain to and relax.

The problem is that a lot of comic book fans don't have the sensibilities to understand art. And so they attribute it to kitsch. But idiots don't get to decide what's art anymore than idiots get to decide what's science.

Attached: ddhj93p-b509cb78-4751-43f3-8d88-a97d25cdb8de.jpg (1892x1075, 341.43K)

The technical contents of an insult aren't really important to how it makes you feel, autists

So they are art?

the high/low art dichotomy shit is for midwits who can't handle subjectivity and nuance.

I think because of how Marvel Studios operates, just hiring like-minded people, actors they like and who are enthusiastic even if it's for le paycheck, it can come off like those other studios that just conveyor-belt produce blockbusters and put them out, but the MCU seems to have more love and thought put into it and as much as fags here complain that they're not comic accurate I disagree, you can almost always see what they're going for or see similarities between a run or writer's version of a character to what's on screen even when they change shit like with Spider-Man

they're better than most blockbusters, they're not afraid to remix their source material while still coming from that same heart. they're some of the only superhero films that actually understand the superhero genre, and they understand what differentiates Marvel's characters and image from DC's and from generic blockbusters

i like the movies. some of them are shitty, i don't like iron man 2 or the dark world, i like captain marvel and ant-man but think they're boring, i don't like whedon's avengers movies. i love the entire cap trilogy, Civil War and Endgame are my favorite MCU movies, and i seethed over what they did with Spidey at first but then accepted it, glad they reset his status quo for the next film though

and multiverse of madness was kino, the music note fight was the best scene

>It's a popcorn flick you can turn off your brain to and relax
this is where i'd argue there's sort of two species of blockbuster here. There's ones where you really do need to turn your brain off like Bayformers, Rampage, Tom Cruise Mummy

then there's ones where you can go into it and just munch and turn your brain off, but you can also just let your brain run a little bit and get more out of the movie. They're not intelligent or impenetrable, but they're clever and genuinely fun and heartwarming. like OG Star Wars, Titanic, Indiana Jones, ET, Jurassic Park.

The MCU straddles the line between the two but I think it largely falls into the second category. There's also the dichotomy of "boy" blockbusters like LOTR and Fast & Furious and "girl" blockbusters like Harry Potter and Hunger Games. the MCU straddles the line between those two as well, but the Russo brought a much needed "machoness" to the MCU after Whedon "tumblrfied" it in his movies. constantly balancing the two

>just turn off your brain and relax bro
I do that every night before i fall asleep and i don't have to pay admission to do it.

>you can turn off your brain to and relax.
You can do this at an art gallery

Well they obviously care about their craft. As much as you may possibly not give a shit or think that's absurd for Marvel movies, it probably feels disheartening when one of the biggest and one of the most influential directors comes out with a interview about how Marvel movies aren't real movies.

Puts asses in seats

It's not high art, it's capeshit.
That doesn't mean it can't be good, it's just not high art.

Art doesn't need to be deep, bro. Stfu with the "kitsch" shit.

If my project was successful I'd cry myself to sleep in my giant money bed.

Poor people always say this but it's been proven that beyond 100k money doesn't make you any happier

>You can do this at an art gallery
Of course you can, but the point of art is to is to study it. To you the Mona Lisa is just a painting. To me it's a display of how simply art can capture emotions and thoughts.

Attached: 1634109054808.jpg (1397x1883, 885.46K)

>marvel products aren't high art
Well, I'd argue for the merit of some "real" Marvel stuff. Kirby FF, Kraven's Last Hunt, Godzilla, Death of Captain Marvel.
I would not argue for MCU, which seems fixated on strip mining the source material for content, while simultaneously making it as bland as possible for mass appeal, and denying its own legacy as something to feel shame over.

The MCU seems oddly obsessed with strip-mining 2000s-2010s Marvel for content, like they're making a conscious effort to to choose the worse eras in the source material's history to focus on, rather than anything that actually had merit. Some of it they manage to do better than the original comics.

it isn't though

They're the McDonald's of cinema.

>comic book fans
You’re talking about live action movies, not comic books. Are you drunk?

>"real" Marvel stuff
>Godzilla
user, that comic was fun but not what we'd call a masterwork.

I told you guys exactly what would piss me off, and you did, and now I'm pissed off! How could this be happening to me?!

They get snubbed every year for being shit.

>but the point of art is to is to study it
No...

I think most discussions about "what is art" is cancer. Because even when people try to bring up points like, "It's not art if it's paid for, like a corporate product", it's completely nullified when you point out most famous Renaissance paintings were commissioned and sometimes micromanaged by the person paying for them.

I think "art" meaning both an expression done in physical/visual medium OR something of high integrity is just a big mistake.

I think children like you who are incapable of accepting that meaningless action movies aren’t art yet can still be enjoyed and loved are cancer.

>children
Invalidation doesn’t bring anything useful to the conversation, kid.

It's a commercial product. It's no more "art" than than a potato peeler.

Paying a master to paint your portrait is fundamentally different from paying for a movie ticket.

She is funny looking.

Every movie is a commercial product, very little art isn't commercial

Some, not all.

i saw an argument recently that "drip art" like when an artist just lets a paint bucket swing over a canvas and make the painting isnt necessarily art, but is instead decor. i think that applies here. they arent made to be art theyre made to be products and thats ok? like that is literally fine? there is no moral value here. people are mentally ill

Martin Scorsese already debunked Marvel being cinema, let alone high art.

Well that's dumb, these movies are made like every other movie with the same intentions. Drip art is just random dripping made completely differently to an actual painting intended to serve a completely different purpose

>these movies are made like every other movie with the same intentions.
that literally is not true, and directors and actors who have been in these projects have talked about how that isnt true. im not saying this isnt filmmaking - these movies push technology and advance the industry, but theyre not made to tell artistic stories about the human experience with the express purpose of generating emotion, and that's ok.

>"This is some quality..." (chew) "...art right there" (slurp).

It requires an IQ

Attached: movie-watching.jpg (450x300, 38.64K)

This

Attached: A4F0BAA3-3361-4070-AF0B-851C69B0CD20.jpg (750x413, 28.91K)

>but theyre not made to tell artistic stories about the human experience with the express purpose of generating emotion, and that's ok.
Sure they are

Movies are art yes, and marvel movies are the like, mass produced home decor painting print art equivalent. They can be exceptionally well made but their entire purpose is mass appeal, to the detriment if it's artistic value

But this is how people watch every movie. If you don't think this is how the average Wolf of Wall street fan looks one weekend before watching Iron-Man the next then you are delusional

>I get angry when people have different opinions about our films

Thank you for proving my point.

the average wolf of wallstreet fan is a retard

No one ever argued that Michael Bay movies were high art. Nobody ever pretended that Schwarzenegger action movies were the height of fiction. Why do Marvel actors and directors get so asspained when people call a spade a spade?

>it's not art because people like it

Woah I don't remember this scene

Because nobody said that about those movies as dumb action shlock was accepted, it's such a dumb critique to say something isn't cinema when it's the only thing keeping cinemas alive

Please, don’t be a faggot your whole life.

Marvel movies are literally just dumb Summer blockbusters though, ala Bay/Bruckheimer/Spielberg fare. They aren't some sort of deep rumination on the human condition, they're shit you watch and look at the special effects, then immediately forget the second you walk out the door. Why anyone insists on pretending they're high art or worthy of awards is beyond me.

Capeshit is the creative bottom of the barrel. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a subhuman mongrel.

nah, I get where they're coming from. I won't belittle the work that goes into them (the concept artists and VFX artists are doing incredible stuff) but ultimately they're family movies adapting pre-existing material into Disney franchise fodder. there's nothing new or groundbreaking or revelatory about any of them

Probably because most movies that win awards aren’t high art and don’t deserve them either.
Look at the best picture list of the 20th century.
Marvel movies suck, but saying they’re somehow less worthy than Edwards’ Around the World in 80 Days, for example, which won best picture is pure pretense.

I just said it's art though, the problem is it will compromise it's quality, and the artists vision, ie director and writers, to better optimize it's monetary return.

Every movie is a piece of art, that doesn't mean the art is good. And I'm not even saying marvel movies are bad, they excel in what they are designed for. But that's a formula for better or worse they don't deviate from

You did this thread on Yea Forums already

They are art though I don't know why people are so insistent on trying to claim they aren't as if it's some big victory

They aren’t art though I don't know why people are so insistent on trying to claim they are as if it's some big victory

Your job is infinetly less important to society than a farmer's.

user you’re treating childish action flicks like art and using “no u” comebacks. Time to grow up.

He is getting bullied over there though