In Scorsese and Coppola, Marvel meets formidable foes

It's not exactly the stuff of "Stop the presses!" that some of the greatest filmmakers in the world have misgivings about the rise of the superhero film and its outsized place in our film culture.

And yet recent critical comments by Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola have been greeted like entreaties to a prizefight, a battle royale. "In this corner, the box-office champion of the wooooorld, Marvel 'The Incredible Hulk' Studios! And in this corner, the 76-year-old maker of anguished Catholic epics and crime-movie classics, Martin 'The-Raging-Bull' Scorsese!"

Plenty of rumbling has followed since Scorsese, in a magazine interview earlier this month, suggested Marvel movies aren't cinema but "something else" — theme park rides uninterested in "trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being." Coppola doubled down over the weekend, telling journalists in France, gathered to see him accept the Prix Lumiere, that Scorsese was not only right but that he didn't go far enough. Marvel films, he said, are "despicable."

This image released by Marvel Studios shows Chris Hemsworth, left, and the Hulk in a scene from, "Thor: Ragnarok." Some of the greatest filmmakers in the world have misgiving about the rise of the superhero film and its outsized place in our film culture. (Marvel Studios via AP)

"He's right because we expect to learn something from cinema, we expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some inspiration," said Coppola.

Countless Marvel fans, like 19th century gentlemen whose honor had been offended, took up the cause on social media as if challenged to a duel. They were backed up by some of the premiere makers of Marvel movies, too, including "Guardians of the Galaxy" director James Gunn, "Avengers" director Joss Whedon and "Thor: Ragnarok" helmer Taika Waititi. Waititi wryly took the debate at face value, noting matter-of-factly, "It's at the movies. It's in cinemas."

And, of course, it's not a real brouhaha until Ken Loach gets involved. The 83-year-old British social realist joined the fracas, telling Sky News that Marvel movies are "a cynical exercise" and "commodities like hamburgers." Many have been left praying that the heated argument will be joined, from beyond the grave, by past legends of cinema. What does Hitchcock make of "Spider-Man: Homecoming"? Would John Ford think "Endgame" too long?

This image released by Columbia Pictures shows Tom Holland in a scene from "Spider-Man: Homecoming." Some of the greatest filmmakers in the world have misgiving about the rise of the superhero film and its outsized place in our film culture. (Chuck ZlotnickColumbia Pictures-Sony via AP)

Despite the recent media storm, the referendum on Marvel has been going on for a decade. As much as the comic-book company's most slavish followers would like to believe otherwise, not everyone is a fan. The way Marvel movies are made, assembly-line style, is indeed a new evolution of the kind of studio control that has always played a role in Hollywood productions. It's well known that directors are often approached for a Marvel film with a promise that the studio will take care of the action sequences, you just fill in the other bits.

The overarching vision, mapped out by Marvel chief creative officer Kevin Feige, has succeeded, extravagantly. But even $20 billion in ticket sales is no match, really, for "The Godfather" or "Taxi Driver." Though some would like to settle this squabble by measuring theatrical grosses , there are more meaningful metrics than box office.

Filmmakers (not to mention many critics and many moviegoers) have long voiced alarm at Marvel's brand of moviemaking. Steven Spielberg, you might remember, six years ago forecast Hollywood's implosion because of the over-abundance of mega-budget movies. Spielberg (whose "Jaws" helped birth the modern blockbuster) has also pointed out that movie culture inevitably moves in cycles. "There will be a time when the superhero movie goes the way of the Western," he told me .

FILE - This Feb. 5, 2018 file photo shows director Christopher Nolan at the 90th Academy Awards Nominees Luncheon in Beverly Hills, Calif. Some of the greatest filmmakers in the world have misgiving about the rise of the superhero film and its outsized place in our film culture. Nolan, whose Batman film “The Dark Knight” is widely considered the genre’s greatest triumph, has said he’s no longer interested in franchise movies given the way they’ve come to be manufactured. (Photo by Jordan StraussInvisionAP, File)

Even Christopher Nolan, whose Batman film "The Dark Knight" is widely considered the genre's greatest triumph, has said he's no longer interested in franchise movies given the way they've come to be manufactured.

"The cinematic landscape has changed since I started making Batman films," Nolan has said . "When we were doing the 'Dark Knight' trilogy, I think it was easier for a filmmaker in the position I was in to express a more personal vision of what they wanted to do in a franchise property."

Marvel's biggest supporters, I think, would grant part of the films' appeal is that they all feel of one spandex-wrapped piece. They're so similar that even Gwyneth Paltrow can't remember which ones she's in .

That's not to say that personal expression doesn't filter into a Marvel movie. Just as in westerns (and noirs and musicals and any other genre ever churned out by Hollywood), filmmakers can craft something individual in even the most well-oiled factories. It would be hard to dismiss the cosmic anarchy of Gunn's "Guardians" films, the spectacular sweep of Ryan Coogler's Oscar-nominated "Black Panther" or the deconstructionist delight of "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse."

But — and this is Scorsese and Coppola's main point — there is so much more. As vast as Marvel's "cinematic universe" is, it doesn't hold a candle to the actual cinematic universe. And they would like to divert some of the spotlight on Marvel elsewhere.

"There's a generation that thinks cinema is a blockbuster," Scorsese told me in June when he was releasing his semi-fictional documentary "Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story." Scorsese was most bothered by the sight of large, multi-screen cinemas playing one movie ("Endgame") on 11 of its 12 screens.

"We have to fight back at this practice of overwhelming the market with the blockbuster," said Scorsese. "The — how should I put it? — the regular film, that's being edged out. It's got to go someplace. It has to go someplace because you know why? There are people that are going to continue to make them."

The concern for the suffocation of "the regular film," the non-blockbuster, is justified. Comic-book movies, sequels and remakes make up nine of this year's top films at the box office (the lone exception is Jordan Peele's "Us") and that's been roughly the case for years now. Netflix and other streaming services are, for now, bankrolling a large percentage of the industry's larger budget original films, including Scorsese's upcoming "The Irishman."

Some have sought to portray Scorsese and Coppola as out of touch, too old to be connected to the pop culture of today. But it would be hard to find two filmmakers who have stayed more intrepid with age. Few people have done more to champion classic cinema from all corners of the globe than Scorsese, co-founder of the vital preservation and restoration non-profit Film Foundation. And Coppola, who has tried to unearth a new medium he calls "live cinema," remains more experimental than most filmmakers a third his age.

"I feel now we have this bifurcated cinema in our country being of independent films where we have the most wonderful wealth of talent and then the industry films which are pretty much superhero films," Coppola told me ahead of the release of his "Apocalypse Now: Final Cut" in August. "One has too much money — the studio, Marvel comic-type movies. They're basically making the same movie over and over again, and seducing all of the talent. Everyone is hoping to get a small part in one of those movies because that's where the money is. And as opposed, the wonderful, unusual, exotic, interesting, provocative and beautiful independent films have no money. The budget for the craft service of one of those superhero films could more than be a budget for some of these brilliant young — and not only young — filmmakers. That is a tragedy."

The irony of the rolling debate kicked off by Scorsese's comments is that we're, again, just talking about Marvel movies. But for Marvel moviegoers willing to hear them out, you won't find better guides to the wider world of cinema. Scorsese, in particular, is a walkingcompendium of film references, spilling passionaterecommendations everywhere he goes. You might even say he's a fan.

Follow AP Film Writer Jake Coyle on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jakecoyleAP

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. resolution sponsored by the United States and Japan calling on all nations to prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race in outer space, calling it “a dirty spectacle” that cherry picks weapons of mass destruction from all other weapons that should also be banned.

The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 13 in favor, Russia opposed and China abstaining.

The resolution would have called on all countries not to develop or deploy nuclear arms or other weapons of mass destruction in space, as banned under a 1967 international treaty that included the U.S. and Russia, and to agree to the need to verify compliance.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said after the vote that Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space.

“Today’s veto begs the question: Why? Why, if you are following the rules, would you not support a resolution that reaffirms them? What could you possibly be hiding,” she asked. “It’s baffling. And it’s a shame.”

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia dismissed the resolution as “absolutely absurd and politicized,” and said it didn’t go far enough in banning all types of weapons in space.

Russia and China proposed an amendment to the U.S.-Japan draft that would call on all countries, especially those with major space capabilities, “to prevent for all time the placement of weapons in outer space, and the threat of use of force in outer spaces.”

The vote was 7 countries in favor, 7 against, and one abstention and the amendment was defeated because it failed to get the minimum 9 “yes” votes required for adoption.

The U.S. opposed the amendment, and after the vote Nebenzia addressed the U.S. ambassador saying: “We want a ban on the placement of weapons of any kind in outer space, not just WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). But you don’t want that. And let me ask you that very same question. Why?”

He said much of the U.S. and Japan’s actions become clear “if we recall that the U.S. and their allies announced some time ago plans to place weapons … in outer space.”

Nebenzia accused the U.S. of blocking a Russian-Chinese proposal since 2008 for a treaty against putting weapons in outer space.

Thomas-Greenfield accused Russia of undermining global treaties to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, irresponsibly invoking “dangerous nuclear rhetoric,” walking away from several of its arms control obligations, and refusing to engage “in substantive discussions around arms control or risk reduction.”

She called Wednesday’s vote “a real missed opportunity to rebuild much-needed trust in existing arms control obligations.”

Thomas-Greenfield’s announcement of the resolution on March 18 followed White House confirmation in February that Russia has obtained a “troubling” anti-satellite weapon capability, although such a weapon is not operational yet.

Putin declared later that Moscow has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space, claiming that the country has only developed space capabilities similar to those of the U.S.

Thomas-Greenfield said before the vote that the world is just beginning to understand “the catastrophic ramifications of a nuclear explosion in space.”

It could destroy “thousands of satellites operated by countries and companies around the world — and wipe out the vital communications, scientific, meteorological, agricultural, commercial, and national security services we all depend on,” she said.

The defeated draft resolution said “the prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security.” It would have urged all countries carrying out activities in exploring and using outer space to comply with international law and the U.N. Charter.

The draft would have affirmed that countries that ratified the 1967 Outer Space Treaty must comply with their obligations not to put in orbit around the Earth “any objects” with weapons of mass destruction, or install them “on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space.”

The treaty, ratified by some 114 countries, including the U.S. and Russia, prohibits the deployment of “nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction” in orbit or the stationing of “weapons in outer space in any other manner.”

The draft resolution emphasized “the necessity of further measures, including political commitments and legally binding instruments, with appropriate and effective provisions for verification, to prevent an arms race in outer space in all its aspects.”

It reiterated that the U.N. Conference on Disarmament, based in Geneva, has the primary responsibility to negotiate agreements on preventing an arms race in outer space.

The 65-nation body has achieved few results and has largely devolved into a venue for countries to voice criticism of others’ weapons programs or defend their own. The draft resolution would have urged the conference “to adopt and implement a balanced and comprehensive program of work.”

At the March council meeting where the U.S.-Japan initiative was launched, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “geopolitical tensions and mistrust have escalated the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades.”

He said the movie “Oppenheimer” about Robert Oppenheimer, who directed the U.S. project during World War II that developed the atomic bomb, “brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world.”

“Humanity cannot survive a sequel to Oppenheimer,” the U.N. chief said.

United States Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield addresses members of the U.N. Security Council before voting during a meeting on Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at United Nations headquarters. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez)

FILE - U.S. Ambassador to United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield speaks on Thursday, April 18, 2024, in Tokyo. The U.N. Security Council is set to vote Wednesday, April 24, 2024, on a resolution announced by Thomas-Greenfield, calling on all nations to prevent a dangerous nuclear arms race in outer space. It is likely to be vetoed by Russia. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, Pool, File)