My question was what’s so bad about it?

Just cause you watch a movie for something other than being entertained doesn’t make the movies I find entertaining bad

Again, you don't think they're bad because that's what you're watching them for. Someone who wants something else out of a movie would probably consider them bad.

That makes sense but then any movie ever can be considered bad to someone

King of The Hill>>Simpsons

for sure, I think movies are a lot more subjective than some people like to think

The "amusement park" argument doesn't claim that the movies themselves are bad.

Also, the "I watched movies to be entertained" perspective is one of main distinguishing factors of what people have deemed "amusement park movies". (And nobody has argued that perspective in itself or individual movies that cater to it are necessarily bad.)

The way people talk about amusement park movies makes it seem like they’re bad

Disclaimer: kind of a long post, haha

Because a whole lot of viewers (i.e., the people who read about it, especially in the last couple months in the media) on both sides of the argument have taken what's being said out of context and are just using it to support their own tastes. That's what happens when so many folks on the Internet/social are just looking to argue with each other endlessly without making any relevant points.

On one side you've got a large amount of people who like those kinds of movies and have taken the recent criticism as "disney/star wars/superhero movies = bad movies" — like its an attack on their personal tastes. (And the simplicity of clickbait headlines and highlights statements used by most popular publications have virtually made those reactions a guarantee.) So their first (and likely only) response is countering with why the movies themself are good.

Then the other side is full of people who already dislike those kinds movies, so they just use the recently revived "amusement park" argument to support their tastes, even when "taste" isn't necessarily relevant to the argument.

And these 2 "fan groups" behaving like this just fans the flames between them even more and creating a never-ending cycle of "taste vs taste" that never actually goes anywhere.

The "amusement park" argument is a lot more specific than "these movies are bad" or "different movies are more worthy." It's an argument against what's happened to American film culture due to how the industry has evolved over the past 30-40 years in areas like market control, strained competition, media/press compliance, profit praising, conglomerate advert/marketing budgets and practices (among several other factors) — and how the increasingly prominent role of "amusement park movies" relates to that evolution, particularly in the past 10-15 years. It's not an argument that can be condensed down to an op-ed article for satisfactory explanation (and most certainly not the short-form headline "update" rolling-news story articles that make up 95% of the topic's coverage).

So of course, people in both the above groups are more likely to scan through the articles covering the issue in superficial manners, and they'll just fill in any gaps with their own feelings/opinions instead of researching further, because it's more convenient.

even as a MCU fan i can be brutally honest and say that 50 percent of its filmography is certified amusement park at its worst

(Dark World, Antman & The Wasp, Age of Ultron, Iron Man 2)

but it can be at its best most times and still have substantive narratives and themes that carry even the worst of it’s lineup and make it appear better then they actually are .

I don't hear the same people "outing" respective filmmakers for having a foot in making "amusement park films" Steven Spielberg for instance, ex his Indiana Jones series. If you're going to spew some elite bs like that, keep it consistent. It is what is, people are biased and judgmental when it fits so this whole thing is kinda weird but I'm fully behind Scorsese since his comments/articles are actually reasonable, as Rasie said it's the fangroups. Cinema or not, insert any other corny tag, it all serves a purpose. Andrei Rublev is pretty f***ing great - as is Endgame. Providing more opportunities for smaller/independent films are one thing, while bashing one is another

Guardians 2 and Thor Ragnarok is the worst s*** MCU put out. I felt like I was watching a parody

favorite MCU film, then? just curious

@Wahi - Since we can't edit quotes on this site (on mobile at least), I'll just gonna tag you

I don't hear the same people "outing" respective filmmakers for having a foot in making "amusement park, Steven Spielberg films for instance, ex his Indiana Jones series. If you're going to spew some elite bs like that, keep it consistent.

You haven't? That's a bit strange to me tbh, haha

Much of Spielberg's career in particular has been commonly put under the "amusement park" umbrella for a long time now, especially with Jaws being ubiquitously cited as the blueprint for the modern blockbuster and whatnot. Then the others like Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and ET are typically treated in the same vein. (And they also got their fair share of negative feedback from other filmmakers at the time and afterwards, some even being Spielberg's New Hollywood contemporaries.)

Tbh, I've rarely ever seen anyone talk about those Spielberg films more critically than people talk about current blockbuster franchises (e.g., Star Wars/MCU). Jaws is arguably the only thing close to being an exception out of all in regards to criticism, cause I've read a good handful of essays mining that film with a little bit more depth by comparison. And I think it's also at least worth noting that even some of Spielberg's more serious, non-franchis films (e.g., Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan) have been criticized for having "amusement park"-like aesthetics — not only by some major critics, but a significant amount of major (largely European) filmmakers.

But even if we set aside all the above, I think there's another issue that remains with this "outing other respectable filmmakers like Spielberg" counter: I don't really see how whether or not people do this is actually significant to the arguments being made against more recent "amusement park" film culture tbh.

Yeah, films like those by Spielberg indeed were the "amusement park" equivalents in their time, but they also didn't cast a shadow over that era's market like Disney's output has increasingly within the past decade. And the studios responsible for those Spielberg films (and other "amusement park" fare) at the time also weren't operating in the same theater screening environment, didn't have remotely comparable ad-mark budgets, didn't have nearly the same amount tools or avenues for ad-mark, and industry competition in general wasn't as tense as it is now.

I can definitely see the value in acknowledging the current "amusement park" movie model's roots, but I also don't think pointing out others who fail to do so highlights any notable flaw in their argument — especially when the separations between past and present-day "amusement park movies" exist in those various economic levels. If nothing else, the "keep it consistent" counter just seems far too easy and tempting to jump on when the topic is as complex as this one is. (Similar to the "they're the most popular because that what audiences want to see" falsehood that's been used ad nauseam by everyone, even Disney execs themselves recently, since this topic became public discourse.)

Providing more opportunities for smaller/independent films are one thing, while bashing one is another

This, on the other hand, I totally agree with

Joker is a bad movie. From the kids beating him up in the beginning, to De Niro giving him a speech about how not all people are bad after he admitted to murdering 3 people on television. I physically rolled my eyes when they had to show all the flashbacks of the girlfriend disappearing

Gotchu lol

But I'm not saying to "judge this equally to that", irl I really don't care and that shouldn't matter since we're far removed from Spielbergs blockbuster reign in which you fairly stated. I'm only pointing out obvious statements that would go against the other. And yes people being critical with Spielberg within certain film communities is a thing, lmao almost derogated, I'm more so speaking about the industry where he's this adored, safe and almost worshiped figure. Yes I'm being unfair, but at the same time we would never hear a mainstream name big as Coppola s*** on some of his peers work like he did with the MCU (why would he, Ik, "they're peers"), but, nor would the big media conglomerates, bloggers, journalists in the US also. At least enough to garner attention.

What I initially meant by my post is that with every generation, there's blockbusters. Not to the extent to what we're seeing today, no, but crowdpleasers regardless. That's why I'm buying Scorsese's take, yes they're amusing but they're also taking up a lot of other creatives and work of quote on quote "substance" and "originality" from Cinema.

Looking back at my post it might come off as if I dislike Spielberg and want people to call him out for making his own fare of "amusement park" like films. I don't. I'm a fan of almost every aspects of Cinema. I enjoyed the silent era, the big horror franchise movies of what was Universal Classic Monsters as did I with Spielberg, George Lucas and now the superhero genre. But yes I want people to keep the same energy lol but that's not me saying that their movies aren't worthwhile or that they should be as questioned of as our blockbusters of today. At the end of the day, I love the Jodorowsky, Bergman and Hitchcock's of the world as much I do Star Wars and Comic Book Novels/Films.

A lot of it is an Age thing though, people out of touch and a modern outlook. Give it some years and hopefully there's a better balance with the auteurs and the studios. Say what you will about Netflix or A24 but they're making a splash in the industry. Who knows what it may lead to

I think Civil War Black Panther and Winter Soldier are pretty dope

@Wahi

I feel you.

But regarding this:

Yes I'm being unfair, but at the same time we would never hear a mainstream name big as Coppola s*** on some of his peers work like he did with the MCU

He actually did multiples times, particularly towards George Lucas for virtually abandoning everything else for Star Wars and his various non-film media ventures, with his only other filmmaking work being producer credits for various things.

But I mean, like I said above: Coppola's and Scorsese's positions aren't s***ting on the MCU films themselves anyway; they're s***ting on the crushing economic practices of the film industry right now, and how things like MCU, Star Wars, Disney remakes, market-wide nostalgia farming, etc... are just the tools being exploited to keep it that way.

But the critic itself wasn't against Lucas' film making y'know. Scorsese wasn't spiteful yes, Coppola on the other lmfaoooo cmon now he called them "despicable" that's pretty nasty fam

F*** Coop from the OC

The original articles running his "despicable" comment were reprinting a partial quote made in France without the full context of his statement. Several days after the initial articles ran, he made a statement clarifying:

"Coppola says his 'despicable' quote was not translated correctly. The director clarified the word 'despicable' was not being used directly for Marvel films but for the overall film industry’s general push into making commerce films over art."

Source

Well, I be damned. This why I hate media sometimes man

Yep. And since the press made a huge circus with the first "Coppola backs Marty, calls MCU films despicable" story, trying to be among the first ones to get the headline published — now almost nobody cares (or probably even knows) about that quote being mistranslated.

All that matters to the public is that first "despicable" quote that makes it seem like he's just trashing the films themselves.

I guarantee you, in the next 20-30 years when Coppola passes away, the vast majority of tribute/obituary articles will reference the out-of-context "despicable" quote when talking about his public activity leading up to death. Smh

Don’t forget they lowkey misquoted Scorsese when the headlines first started making rounds too. Smh

Michael B Jordan 🚮🚮🚮

It's almost as if it's being done intentionally