i should have realized that was a translation. if you think journalism has slipped in english, consider the language barrier, then consider the potential for clickbait for a bad but incendiary translation.


>I feel that approach is taken to reduce the economic risk of
>movies, and I feel the “risk factor” is an element that
>makes movies sometimes be great.

i said something similar here earlier this year (not an original thought). this puts his view in proper context finally.


>Also, the formulaic film
>draws most available resources to them, leaving little for
>more daring productions, reducing diversity.

uh huh. *clinks glass*


>COPPOLA: Well you know because of the lack of risk in the
>production. Marty Scorsese says that the Marvel picture is not
>cinema, he’s right because we expect to learn something from
>cinema, we expect to gain some enlightenment, some knowledge,
>some inspiration. Arguably, I don’t know that anyone gets
>anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again,
>which is the Marvel movies.

here's where we part ways. yes, there is a formula to the MCU, but personally i like/love some much more than others, and i can easily distinguish and enjoy the styles of the different directors/writers. i would not go as far to say it's the same movie being made over and over. is the latest installment the same as a studio putting its resources and belief into a totally new project? no. he and scorsese correctly diagnose the kind of movies that aren't being given their due anymore, which is, again, a somewhat separate subject from their "worth" or worthiness as determined by previous box office returns. studios used to take more risks, that much is true.