Quote:

---

Elsewhere in his Time interview, Scorsese opened up about the state of cinema culture.

"It should be one cinematic culture, you know? But right now everything is being fragmented and broken up in a way," he said, alluding to streaming platforms changing moviegoing habits. He noted that when he was growing up "not everybody liked musicals. Not everybody liked westerns. Not everybody liked gangster films or noirs. But at the time, we just went to the movies, and that's what was playing."

---

At first, I read his comment as negative. However, maybe he is just lamenting how things inevitably change over time.


https://variety.com/2023/film/news/martin-scorsese-rewrote-flower-moon-not-about-white-guys-1235720779/

Capybara said:

---

I haven't read this interview yet, but he's been objectively right each time he makes an observation (which is typically what they are, not critiques) about the current cinema.

He's always been open to change, but what we've seen isn't simply change - it's the wholesale degradation of film in favor of largely nauseating and bloated TV productions.

---

are those your words or his?

I didn't read the whole article, but the quote above just sounds like an old man yelling at clouds.

jackie childs said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I haven't read this interview yet, but he's been objectively right each time he makes an observation (which is typically what they are, not critiques) about the current cinema.

He's always been open to change, but what we've seen isn't simply change - it's the wholesale degradation of film in favor of largely nauseating and bloated TV productions.

---

are those your words or his?

---

Mine. I think he's careful to pull punches when talking about TV, though the Vinyl controversy clearly soured him from working in it anymore. He delineates somewhat between "streaming" and everything else, which can be tricky to interpret if he keeps quotes too minimalistic, but he clearly doesn't care for the explosion of content.

I think the overall production quality started to dip around 2010. Personally, I don't think it takes very long post-release to stamp a movie as a classic/great, and relatively few on my list post-2010 are American productions. Even fewer are Hollywood productions.

Something has happened here that limits creativity in Hollywood films. So much so that I understand anyone who watches 10x more TikTok than movies, since there are legitimately many many talented people on there. The issue with that is the medium sucks: it is addictive for many, and will only become a more potent expedited ad delivery vehicle (Richard Linklater's words, not mine) with time. Though TikTok and YT are mainly competitors to TV, not movies.

I'm clearly biased towards movies and theaters, if you can't already tell. Like I'd gladly sit on concrete benches to watch something in a theater, as long as it's clean. There's just something special about theaters, the ones I go to anyway: they're the only places I ever smoke (outside ofc), and I've met some of the most interesting people in my life, many who are now friends, in them. This is one of the many reasons I'd die defending QT: he agrees, so much so that he's using his own money (presumably) to maintain and save a few.

Arrakis ecologist said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

Gone are the nights of millions watching the same episode of a TV show at the same time so that they can discuss it the next day. There will never be a moment like "Who shot JR?"

---

This exactly did happen at my work for about the last 3 seasons of GOT. And then they went and screwed it up.

---

What moment in Game of Thrones do you think is as big as "Who Shot J.R.?"

That episode had a Nielsen rating of 53.3 and a 76% share, and it was estimated that 83 million people watched the episode

Capybara said:

---

jackie childs said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I haven't read this interview yet, but he's been objectively right each time he makes an observation (which is typically what they are, not critiques) about the current cinema.

He's always been open to change, but what we've seen isn't simply change - it's the wholesale degradation of film in favor of largely nauseating and bloated TV productions.

---

are those your words or his?

---

Mine. I think he's careful to pull punches when talking about TV, though the Vinyl controversy clearly soured him from working in it anymore. He delineates somewhat between "streaming" and everything else, which can be tricky to interpret if he keeps quotes too minimalistic, but he clearly doesn't care for the explosion of content.

---

I think you're watching the wrong shows.

Sure, there's lots of bad shows just like there's lots of bad movies. But there's also talented people doing really compelling things on television that are far better and more engaging than most movies.

fig96 said:

---

Capybara said:

---

jackie childs said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I haven't read this interview yet, but he's been objectively right each time he makes an observation (which is typically what they are, not critiques) about the current cinema.

He's always been open to change, but what we've seen isn't simply change - it's the wholesale degradation of film in favor of largely nauseating and bloated TV productions.

---

are those your words or his?

---

Mine. I think he's careful to pull punches when talking about TV, though the Vinyl controversy clearly soured him from working in it anymore. He delineates somewhat between "streaming" and everything else, which can be tricky to interpret if he keeps quotes too minimalistic, but he clearly doesn't care for the explosion of content.

---

I think you're watching the wrong shows.

Sure, there's lots of bad shows just like there's lots of bad movies. But there's also talented people doing really compelling things on television that are far better and more engaging than most movies.

---

I give very few shows a chance, and will only watch them as they air. Even something like The Sopranos, obviously one of the most lauded ever, was just too long at 86 hours iirc to finish. Again, I would've finished it had I seen it as it aired. Honestly, I'm the type to find a 250 match (in tennis) in like, Sofia, to be more compelling than all but maybe two or three shows in a given year. Obviously most on this board would disagree, which is good! It's not "bad" to like TV; you just likely have to be heavily interested in fictional characters first and foremost, and then nowadays, you have to be able to tolerate writers getting cutesy/sucking themselves off if they were given too much rope.

I think the only three non-live/syndicated shows I've ever finished are Twin Peaks, Frasier, and Mad Men. The first and last can be considered "elevated" soaps, while Frasier, like Succession, is mostly theatrical.

As far as movies go, I'd agree with you if you're limiting them to the high-grossing/Oscar-nominated. But we aren't, so for this century, I'd recommend the following off the top of my head to see where the best (low-grossing/foreign) talents/productions are: Mulholland Drive, Inland Empire, the third season of Twin Peaks (judged as a movie), Pasolini, Zeros and Ones, Miami Vice, Blackhat, Elle, Funny Games (2007), The Piano Teacher, Office (2015, Hong Kong), and Parallel Mothers. So, so many that I'm forgetting, obviously.

I think there are more good productions right now.

But there are less excellent movie or tv shows now.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Capybara said:

---

it's the wholesale degradation of film in favor of largely nauseating and bloated TV productions.

---

I disagree. I think, on average, movies are light years better than they were 40 years ago. Go back and watch old movies (not just the classics), and most of them suck. Everyone just remembers the classics, and there were certainly movies made back in the 70s that are better than your average movie today. However, there was also plenty of garbage made back then, too. Everyone just forgets about it.

---

They make plenty of garbage these days, as well, and those too will be forgotten.

Capybara said:

---

I haven't read this interview yet, but he's been objectively right each time he makes an observation (which is typically what they are, not critiques) about the current cinema.

He's always been open to change, but what we've seen isn't simply change - it's the wholesale degradation of film in favor of largely nauseating and bloated TV productions.

---

but whose fault is that?

why couldn't writers and producers and directors still make good movies for streaming?

YouBet said:

---

This issue of fragmentation is separate from production quality.

---

This is the key point.

If you are under the age of 50 or so, you don't remember a time when America was significantly more homogenous demographically, and had a much smaller number of entertainment options.

Just three major networks, and movie theaters that most likely had three or fewer screens (I remember when a six-screen theater opened near us and we thought it was heaven).

Imagine a country where the big entertainment divide in television programming was rural vs. city. That was America in the 1960s.

jackie childs said:

---

Capybara said:

---

jackie childs said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I haven't read this interview yet, but he's been objectively right each time he makes an observation (which is typically what they are, not critiques) about the current cinema.

He's always been open to change, but what we've seen isn't simply change - it's the wholesale degradation of film in favor of largely nauseating and bloated TV productions.

---

are those your words or his?

---

Mine. I think he's careful to pull punches when talking about TV, though the Vinyl controversy clearly soured him from working in it anymore. He delineates somewhat between "streaming" and everything else, which can be tricky to interpret if he keeps quotes too minimalistic, but he clearly doesn't care for the explosion of content.

---

ok, i'm really glad scorsese didn't call something bloated after i sat through the irishman

---

I think every minute of that movie was necessary since he was laying an entire genre to rest.

LMCane said:

---

Capybara said:

---

I haven't read this interview yet, but he's been objectively right each time he makes an observation (which is typically what they are, not critiques) about the current cinema.

He's always been open to change, but what we've seen isn't simply change - it's the wholesale degradation of film in favor of largely nauseating and bloated TV productions.

---

but whose fault is that?

why couldn't writers and producers and directors still make good movies for streaming?

---

You can, but there's way too much stuff, and something is only likely to catch wind if it's bolstered by heavy discussions on Twitter, mainly (which is awful for any production imo).

I think a larger issue is that fewer writers, producers, and directors who have come up in the past decade were/are avid readers. Reading/oration (so exclude passive listening mediums like podcasts and to a lesser extent, radio) is, and always will be, the best imaginative tool available to us. Look at someone like Harmony Korine, for example. Tons of talent, but he's largely produced mediocre to bad movies because (imo) he admittedly has always loathed reading.

These are all just ways to excuse directors for making bad products. Plenty of great movies have come out in the last 10-15 years, streaming didn't stop those directors.

PatAg said:

---

These are all just ways to excuse directors for making bad products. Plenty of great movies have come out in the last 10-15 years, streaming didn't stop those directors.

---

No, but it has ensured their projects have been viewed less, so they've had less cultural capital. I'm interested to know which ones you're referring to as well. Just answer with three, maybe five at most.

I think it's time for everyone to accept that a few things in the mid-2000s began the democratization of digital media for the worse, that is if you think pieces of media should have endurance: YT/FB, the release of the iPhone, and the 2007 strike. I think the effect was so sudden that there are quite possibly zero talented directors under 40, though the French seem like they might have a few with staying power.

Basically going forward with millennials and below, it seems like the most talented (whatever that means anymore) will either work on franchises (for TV too - don't think it's safe by any means), be video game designers, or write fiction/non-fiction that relatively few people will have the mental stamina to finish, even if the work is outstanding. This of course excludes those who will shamelessly sell out early on by having to produce ad-littered garbage on TikTok or whichever platforms succeed it. Thankfully those like Lena Dunham made some great stuff before this all began to tip over.

Interstellar, Parasite, Django, Whiplash, Wolf of Wall St
Prisoners, 3 bilboards, Manchester by the sea. the early Taylor SHeridan movies, Wind River, Sicario, Hell or High Water, Once Upon a time in hollywood

Its really just the sequel/series mania that has probably soaked up a lot of funding and made studios less likely to fund an original story (unless Nolan, Scorcese, or Tarantino are making it)
And none of the marvel/DC movies have anything to do with streaming sites.

I think attributing anything from the last 2-3 years to streaming is pretty ignorant, as that time period was impacted by covid more than anything, so I didnt list anything from the 2020s

My main complaints is the embracing of CGI over practical effects.

Mad Max Fury Road is the great example of a film that bucked the trend and it was one of the greatest spectacles I've seen in theater.

It's interesting that I think we'd all say TV took a great leap forward the past 20 years, largely driven by the compelling stories being told, but movie story quality feels about the same.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

My main complaints is the embracing of CGI over practical effects.

Mad Max Fury Road is the great example of a film that bucked the trend and it was one of the greatest spectacles I've seen in theater.

It's interesting that I think we'd all say TV took a great leap forward the past 20 years, largely driven by the compelling stories being told, but movie story quality feels about the same.

---

Bruce Almighty said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

Arrakis ecologist said:

---

Iowaggie said:

---

Gone are the nights of millions watching the same episode of a TV show at the same time so that they can discuss it the next day. There will never be a moment like "Who shot JR?"

---

This exactly did happen at my work for about the last 3 seasons of GOT. And then they went and screwed it up.

---

What moment in Game of Thrones do you think is as big as "Who Shot J.R.?"

That episode had a Nielsen rating of 53.3 and a 76% share, and it was estimated that 83 million people watched the episode

---

Before my time, but you're probably right. In 1980, 95% of America had 4 channels to pick from.

---

I think Lost was the last big "hurrah" for a massive network tv audience like "Who shot JR". Since then there have been big nights for cable shows like GOT, but those aren't like the old days of seemingly everyone in America tuned into one show.

Entertainment has been better than ever the last 10-15 years. Is there a ton of mediocre stuff? Yeah, but there is a lot of great content too. I'm not going to be saddened that it's more difficult to make money on smaller movies because everyone's attention is so fragmented and divided right now with all the content. It's a great time to be alive as far as entertainment is concerned.

I'll be even happier when someone figures out how to pump out more fantasy content without breaking the bank.

It's similar to music. Good stuff is being made, but it takes a little more work to find it because the channels of distribution are so diffused. So maybe we're not producing as many true superstars as in the past, but a lot more people are able to make it professionally. That's why we can go to concerts for bands who never get played on the radio or mentioned on any TV stations, but the venue will be packed with fans who know all the words.

maroon barchetta said:

---

Quote:

---

Basically going forward with millennials and below, it seems like the most talented (whatever that means anymore) will either work on franchises (for TV too - don't think it's safe by any means), be video game designers, or write fiction/non-fiction that relatively few people will have the mental stamina to finish, even if the work is outstanding. This of course excludes those who will shamelessly sell out early on by having to produce ad-littered garbage on TikTok or whichever platforms succeed it. Thankfully those like Lena Dunham made some great stuff before this all began to tip over.

---

---

One of the more sudden jump the shark posts I've seen.

Girls is a fantastic show. Nothing more to say on her than that, really.