Actually, you're getting the same content over and over again. While some streaming services are more adept at 'recycling' what they own, every once in a while, switching things up just enough to provide for the illusion of diverse entertainment options, they actually maintain a fairly anchored and curated collection, outside of their 'new release' section, which has become a dumping ground of sorts for not only the 'quality' efforts Scorsese - and others - would put forth, but also, those cheaply made and not terribly prepossessing efforts, merely designed to fatten their content, as opposed to filling up our leisure in a meaningful way. It's not quantity that should rule. It's quality. But again...preaching to the choir.And I can get a wider range of offerings on Blu-ray than I can in the local cinema market. And Blu-ray isn't really any less of an "it's all just product" option than streaming. And I buy a lot of the movies on disc that Scorsese may scorn, but I also buy films Akira Kurosawa and Yasujiro Ozu, Federico Fellini and Vittorio de Sica, Philippe de Broca and Jean Renoir, Krystof Kieslowski and Milos Forman, and so on.
It isn't about change - directly - its about discussion, healthy, uninhibited and probing, which, in turn can foster change when all of the participants are willing to come to the table with an open mind.The horse has already left the barn so arguing over semantics isn't going to change one damn thing.
I recently bought a BluRay that had a cast of several as producers/backers, and I immediately got skeptical of the quality of the film before the first shot. In my eyes, a bunch of backers means the film had a difficult time getting funding from one source due to the dubious quality of the screenplay. The film I bought proved this out- it was awful.I know I've seen a few movies where the opening company cards last a full minute. The longer it goes, the funnier it gets.
Speaking of Fellini since i did view the Criterion box set lately i will watch his last film The Voice of the Moon tonight. Not one of his best but i did like it and like all of his films not a dull moment. It's kinda sad he could not find a US distributor for it.Does anyone remember that Scorsese wrote this article about Fellini and its focus was definitely not on streaming or even the current state of the movie business?
And his brief statement on streaming basically amounted to saying that a human and not an algorithm should be recommending movies to interested parties.
Speaking of Chicken and Egg, the point Scorsese and I would make is that without a viable eco-system of distribution/reviews/curation worthy films don't get the spotlight on them in the first place to encourage folks to seek out the pictures.I understand where Scorsese is coming from. But it's like a chicken and egg thing. The studios...or perhaps the money men...who don't see movies as anything but a way to line pockets, want more big franchise pictures.... I can get a wider (not a narrower) range of offerings on Prime/Netflix/HBO Max/etc. than I can with that theater....
And I can get a wider range of offerings on Blu-ray than I can in the local cinema market. And Blu-ray isn't really any less of an "it's all just product" option than streaming. And I buy a lot of the movies on disc that Scorsese may scorn, but I also buy films Akira Kurosawa and Yasujiro Ozu, Federico Fellini and Vittorio de Sica, Philippe de Broca and Jean Renoir, Krystof Kieslowski and Milos Forman, and so on....
Well, yes...and no. Let's be honest about this. 'Big movies' have been a thing since television entered the market place back in the early fifties, Hollywood combating the little box in the living room with a 'bigger is better' mentality. Hence, widescreen, 3D, stereophonic sound, the resurrection of the Bible/fiction epic, the big splashy musical, and the sprawling western saga. The point is, despite its yen to 'go big or go home' the dream merchants still recognized they had to tell a good story - perhaps, even more so - to get the public to attend.
I disagreed with him about the Marvel movies, though not completely, but he's spot on here. This shouldn't be controversial at all.I am at a complete loss as to how anyone couldn't be. About the only way that someone could disagree with him is if they love Marvel movies so much that they now just have to disagree with anything Scorsese says.
It isn't about change - directly - its about discussion, healthy, uninhibited and probing, which, in turn can foster change when all of the participants are willing to come to the table with an open mind.
Well, much as I agree with mostly all of what you wrote, I really must point out that one of the best, and most successful colabs of Scorsese/DeCaprio was actually The Departed, a remake of an Asian franchise picture. A good one, to be sure, but still not really original.Scorsese and DiCaprio are the last of the old school director/star combos. I say this because both of them have made their livings and careers about making original films not franchise pictures. They keep coming back together because, I think, DiCaprio is the last man standing that can launch a picture that is not about super heroes or franchises into a lot of theaters. He's the last guy left standing that if he says he wants to do a film everybody from studio people, finance guys, other actors, audiences, get interested.