Were Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola right about Marvel films not being cinema? Hell no, muthaf*cka, says Samuel L. Jackson, who was asked for his thoughts about big-shot directors questioning the merit of superhero movies in an episode of The View last week. Cheekily noting that “people aren’t going to see their movies” anyway, Jackson suggested that Marvel films may boil down to a simpler type of entertainment that doesn’t prompt any serious thought, but that doesn’t make them any less legitimate. “Movies are movies,” the actor said. ” All movies are valid.”
Samuel L. Jackson: It’s Easy for Directors to Slam Marvel Movies When ‘People Aren’t Seeing Their Films’ (Variety)
- “Movies are movies,” Jackson said about directors criticizing Marvel films. “Those are the movies that I went to see when I was a kid. And the artistry of making a movie is something that was a mystery for so long. Making movies is no longer a mystery. Kids know how to do it on their phones. So it’s easy for [directors] to dismiss it, only because people aren’t going to see their movie.”
- “It’s like we’ve been dumbed down, but that’s always been the case,” Jackson added. “When we were younger, people went to see cowboy movies, and they went to see superhero movies of another ilk, they had superheroes on television. When you told a serious story, yeah, you find a niche audience — same thing still happens. People go to the movies to make themselves feel better and to get out of their daily existence.”
- Jackson concluded that “people go into the big, darkroom to have a good time. It’s a shard good time. You laugh together and scream together. I still do movies that I would have gone to see when I was a kid.”
- “All movies are valid,” Jackson added. “Some go to the cinema to be moved dearly. Some like superheroes. If somebody has more butts on seats it just means your audience is not as broad. There are people who have had successful careers but nobody can recite one line of their parts. I’m the guy who says shit that’s on a T-shirt.”
Discussion (8 replies)
Join Discussion →I guess he should know, dude has been in a metric sh!t-ton of movies. Some good, some bad. I don't know if he's pulling Nick Cage or Bruce Willis numbers (via the direct to video shovelware category).
edit - imdb shows Sam at 197, Nick at 109, John McClane at 146. OTOH looking at Sam's titles there are some TV shows on there that I don't see for the other 2. But if you put all three of these dudes together, I bet you are no more than 1 or 2 people separated from every movie every made (aka the Kevin Bacon thing)
This post lead me here -
[URL unfurl="true"]https://fictionhorizon.com/top-hollywood-actors-whove-been-in-the-most-movies/[/URL]
Some real surprises. Not sure how accurate it is, but it's in good fun.
Danny Trejo? Wow.
Jackson was the only of the mentioned 3 that made the list (coming in at #10 - 174 movies)
If you want to test the theory, there is a website for that, on a single search basis:
[URL unfurl="true"]https://oracleofbacon.org/movielinks.php[/URL]
Edit:
Turns out, looking at that page a little more, Samuel L Jackson is listed on the “center of the Hollywood universe pages directly.
[URL unfurl="true"]https://oracleofbacon.org/center.php[/URL]
Oh man this rabbit hole goes deep
[URL unfurl="true"]https://oracleofbacon.org/center_list.php[/URL]
It took me a bit, but I found my first infinity - someone credited in a movie with no connection to Kevin bacon
Whatever.
I don't personally care for superhero films. They require too much suspense of disbelief for me. I like more realistic films.
But to each their own. If other people want to watch them, why should Scorcese or Coppola care?
Not everything is for everyone, and that is OK. As my mother used to say, that's why they make both chocolate and vanilla!
Sure I like some superhero films but also some comedy, drama, action, mystery, horror, sci-fi, fantasy, CGI films, traditional animation, and very rarely some anime. The whole schtick about one form not being counted as an actual film is hogwash to me. Back in the 90s I really started watching a lot of films from Asia and it was routinely brought up how in the west there's some strange need to focus on a single category while there are many films that can successfully blend many genres into one.
A movie I enjoy or engages me is what I consider good but I try not to hold the rest of the world to those standards. A lot of the things I like are considered garbage by paid reviewers while the stuff they praise I often consider to be no-brainer pretentious pieces draped in something so it can be called art.
Yeah, that guy has a way of popping up all over the place. Always fun to see him when he does.
Just wanted to add another thought on this. There seems to be some confusion among filmmakers that just because they consider a project to be art it automatically equates to some kind of success that should draw crowds. We've seen numerous directors complain about the poor numbers for their 'art' and how superhero movies have ruined the industry while selective memory kicks in totally ignoring how the industry saw plummeting revenue from the mid to late 80s on. Their 'art' wasn't saving it.
It reminds me of the many people I've known and occasionally been one myself, who own either collector's comics, records, or cars. Those collectible prices only matter when you have someone willing to pay it. Well, it's the same for movies. Just because a filmmaker, or reviewer, or some kind of peer group like the academy, places a value on their creation doesn't mean that value is shared with everyone else.