Joe Russo is definitely not mad at Martin Scorsese
Joe Russo made a cute little joke about owning the box office that reignited the Marvel vs. Martin Scorsese feud
Aux News Martin Scorsese
There is no opting out of Martin Scorsese vs. The Marvel Cinematic Universe: every time the conversation seems to have subsided, the debate flares up again with some new provocation. That’s partially because interviewers can’t stop asking the director to reiterate his opinions on the subject, and partially because those involved with the MCU can’t stop responding defensively to those opinions. The latter is also largely prompted by interview questions, but every once in a while a Marvel guy will blurt out some Scorsese nonsense unprompted, and the result is… whatever Joe Russo has going on in this video.
Here’s the story: Scorsese and his daughter have been posting some adorable TikToks during the press run for Killers Of The Flower Moon, including one where he comically tries to direct his dog, Oscar. Avengers: Endgame co-director Joe Russo “stitched” the video from his production company AGBO’s account, joking, “Aw look, he’s got a schnauzer! I love schnauzers. And his name is Oscar. That’s really cute.” The camera then zooms out to Joe holding his own dog, to whom he says, “Okay, come on, Box Office.” (“It appears we share the same muse,” they captioned the post on Instagram.)
Joe surely didn’t mean to antagonize Scorsese with his comments… right? It’s hard to say what’s a tongue-in-cheek chuckle and what’s genuine resentment over this ongoing feud. Responding to Scorsese’s criticisms back in 2019, Joe told The Hollywood Reporter that they saw the Endgame box office “as a signifier of emotional success,” while his brother Anthony pointed out that “nobody owns cinema. We don’t own cinema. You don’t own cinema. Scorsese doesn’t own cinema.”
“But, at the end of the day, what do we know?” Joe “jokingly” added. “We’re just two guys from Cleveland, Ohio, and ‘cinema’ is a New York word. In Cleveland, we call them movies.”
Positioning Scorsese and his ilk as niche and pretentious is a common tactic of the Marvel vs. Cinema debate. Superhero movies are for everyday people, and Scorsese’s “cinema” is for snobs. But “cinema,” as Scorsese himself has warned, has a shrinking audience. The franchise machines behind the Russos have all but stamped out smaller filmmaking, and with some notable exceptions, those films don’t succeed at the box office—as Joe pointed out. Killers Of The Flower Moon has only made $84 million worldwide on a $200 million budget, for instance.
So Joe Russo’s little box office jab, even if meant as a friendly jest, comes across as sore winner behavior. Whether you agree or disagree with Scorsese’s criticism of Marvel, it’s undeniable that big blockbuster filmmaking has suppressed smaller, independent movies, and it’s factual that Scorsese has made serious efforts to preserve film history. From the Russos’ perspective, it may feel like they’re the underdogs being picked on by cinema’s elder statesman. But Marvel is obviously the Goliath in this situation, and Scorsese is David doing his best to push back on what he accurately perceives as an existential threat to the art form.
No wonder Joe’s presumably playful little joke didn’t land well with the film community. “Let’s just be honest, Joe Russo is a rich asshole hack who won the lottery when Feige plucked him from obscurity and let him tagalong,” the official account for L.A.’s genre film festival BeyondFest posted on Twitter/X. Now that jest feels a whole lot less playful.
82 Comments
I also am not angry with Martin Scorsese. Just so that he knows this.
This is an absolute dream come true for the AV Club staff.It was just a dumb joke. “He has awards, I have extremely high-grossing movies.” But now the most annoying Scorsese fanboys/so-called cinephiles and Marvel fanboys are going to go at it again.Also that tweet from BeyondFest is beyond embarrassing. Film Twitter is sad.
It’s really shitty. Weren’t the Russos established TV directors before Marvel, on critically adored shows like ‘Arrested Development’ and ‘Community’? It may be a big jump from there to blockbuster movies, but it’s hardly “plucked … from obscurity”.
Yes, exactly.
It’s that, and the fact that he named his dog Oscar, and there’s a nonzero chance he was named after the awards, based on his love of everything cinema.“Also that tweet from BeyondFest is beyond embarrassing.”Even better, they also tried to claim that James Cameron was not an asshole after someone pointed out that they like to invite rich assholes like him.
Nobody gives a shit, including your mom.
Is it just a dumb joke though? It really seems more like a sour grapes move. Like “oh I know you’re just doing a little jokey thing to promote your movie but just stopping in to give a quick reminder that my movie made way more than any of yours”Like, I know it’s just social media and not a “Imma let you finish but” moment but it still reads unnecessarily petty. Also as noted it is blatant bait to start yet another Marvel fanboy vs. Film twitter fight for the umpteenth time and it’s just exhausting.
Well Scorsese didn’t just mention Marvel (and similar types of blockbusters in general) once and stop. He’s been talking about it ever since, including during his press tour for Killers of the Flower Moon. He recently called on filmmakers to “fight back” against comic book movies, and Edgar Wright jokingly called him the “last line of defense.”But no, I don’t think it’s sour grapes. He’s a middle-aged man who got in on an internet joke, but Film Twitter and MCU haters got whiny as usual. Like I said to someone else, he’s a nerd who directed some of the highest grossing movies of all time in a giant franchise with his big brother. He’s fine.
Yeah. Although really it’s like the article says, he’s only saying this stuff because people keep prodding him (same for every Marvel actor/ director) for new quotes since it does ignite this cycle again and get a bunch of clicks.
Sure, but it’s not exactly his first press tour. If he wanted to not talk about it, he wouldn’t have.
Why should he not answer a question honestly if it’s something he’s comfortable talking about? To not upset people that like Marvel movies? That’s ridiculous
I never said he shouldn’t answer questions. I said he’s not a silly old man who keeps getting tricked into talking about it by random journalists.
“He’s been talking about it ever since”
He’s constantly being asked about it, dipshit.
“But Marvel is obviously the Goliath in this situation, and Scorsese is David”Man who makes $200 million dollar films is David, yells at clouds.
It’s kinda surprising that anyone gives Scorsese that kind of money to make a movie considering how rarely his films are box office successes. The Wolf of Wall St was his last major hit.
With a lower budget you can play the long game with TV/Streaming rights, but many, if not all of his bigger budget movies have lost cash, some of them great gobs of it.
Eh, a season of premium/prestige TV can cost almost as much, and you can play the long game with movies too. It was produced by Apple, and will soon be on Apple TV+. Netflix has already produced $200 million movies that debut and then exist solely on their platform, so there’s a precedent. A theatrical run secures Oscar eligibility, keeps Marty happy, and makes back a little of its investment from ticket sales.
He’s also maybe one of five living directors who can sell a film to the general public, and not just cinephiles, on his name alone. It’s also a little misleading to phrase it like that; he’s only directed 3 films since Wolf: a deeply personal, niche film with a $40-50M budget, a Netflix film watched by (according to them) at least 64 million households in its first month, and a movie that’s made $84M in its first 2 weeks.
he’s only directed 3 films since Wolf: a deeply personal, niche film with a $40-50M budget, a Netflix film watched by (according to them) at least 64 million households in its first month, and a movie that’s made $84M in its first 2 weeks. A deeply personal, niche film which lost at least $50m even on a budget that small, A Netflix film that cost $200m during a period when their subscriber numbers were falling (and didn’t reverse that trend), and a movie that’s made $84m in its first two weeks, a figure that would be fantastic on a budget that wasn’t $200m. It’s another one that will lose at least $100m. Probably a lot more.
I’m not saying he’s not a great director because he very clearly is, but he shouldn’t be immune from criticism when he’s often given Marvel level budgets to deliver Scorcese level Box Office. His name clearly doesn’t sell films all that much. These days it’s basically just Nolan who fills seats because of who he is. Even Spielberg can’t really any more.
Maybe there’s someone out there that actually cares about the product, and not just the money.More likely you get to a certain point and you’ve known the guys greenlighting your movies for decades.
.
$250 million.
He learned from Coppola that 1970s mob seed money is a good investment especially when you make a movie about La Cosa Nostra without their permission.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/godfather-francis-ford-coppola-handled-mob-figures-production.html/
Clearly, they aren’t suppressing the ability of Scorsese to get a $200 million budget to make a 206-minute period piece.
Lost in Translation cost $4 million and was 106 minutes. Nomadland cost $5 million. The Father cost $6 million. CODA cost $10 million. That Tammy Faye thing Chastain won for cost $2.7 million.I’d rather worry about the future of those movies than whether Scorsese gets to masturbate for 206 minutes.
Nobody will know who Russo is in a decade. Hell, most people don’t know who he is now.
I don’t think this is the flex you and others who say it think it is. So what? The films he directed in the MCU grossed a combined $6.7 billion. One of them is still generally considered the best of the MCU, in The Winter Soldier, and Infinity War and Endgame are generally considered right up there too. And they capped off the most successful franchise in movie history by being praised by critics and audiences while being two of the highest-grossing movies of all-time.Yes, they’re not Taxi Driver or Goodfellas. They’re not going to go down as some of the best movies of all-time, and Russo’s name won’t be bandied about in the “great directors” discussion. But who cares?
Presumably Joe Russo.
He got to make some of the highest grossing movies of all time and made a ton of money. And he got to do it with his big brother.I think he’ll be fine lol
I would certainly hope so, but there are plenty of examples of people who aren’t satisfied with being rich, successful, and well-liked.
There are also people who don’t seem to be satisfied with getting $200 million dollar movies bankrolled by tech companies and getting three weeks of IMAX exclusivity in their 70s/80s.Your statement could also apply to Scorsese lol.
I wasn’t suggesting that it couldn’t. Generally, I’m pretty convinced that Scorsese is concerned for the future of film as a medium and an art form, but I’m also not sure that he realizes that cinema’s declining cultural relevance is in part due to the birth and rise of new mediums, like video games. There’s definitely a part at the end of The Irishman that feels like it’s deeply personal to Scorsese. Yeah, he has left an indelible mark on American culture and will be remembered for a very long time, but he has also lived long enough to see the medium that he devoted his life to start to lose cultural relevance.lol
Yes, obviously he thinks that. But those same tech companies paying for his movies are also to blame. The rise of streaming (as well as the pandemic) have given people a faster and more convenient way to see movies. So now movies that have things like explosions, car chases, people shooting lasers out of their hands, a Barbie world, a video game come to life, etc seem more “deserving” of the big screen than something like a nearly four hour film that will be on a streaming service. But it’s easier to blame one of the big things rather than tech companies and capitalism run rampant. Netflix and Apple pay for his movies, but not because they care about Cinema. They want easy awards and something to add to their (in Apple’s case, very small) catalog of content.“lol”
I’m not sure why he would publicly blame the companies that not only fund his passion projects but also gives his three-and-a-half-hour film a wide theatrical release. I’m sure to him, the tech companies are a savior compared to the corporate interests that dictate what kinds of movies the traditional Hollywood studios release. And don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see tech companies bust up but good (and I think that Scorsese was misguided to single Marvel movies out as not being cinema), but I’m not sure how tech companies are any more to blame for cinema’s declining relevance.““lol””
I didn’t say they’re more responsible, I said they’re part of the problem that he claims to have. Of course he’s not going to call them out because they’re the only ones who still pay for his movies. But if he claims he cares about the culture of Cinema then he should, because they’re not giving $200 million dollars and theatrical releases to to other people to make their passion projects. The only other people who are getting that (or remotely close to that) are the 85 year old Ridley Scott for Napoleon and Matthew Vaughn for…whatever Argylle is supposed to be.The “corporate saviors” are going to dump them all on their tiny streaming service (that just increased their cost again because, surprisingly, they’re not in it for the art despite having a ton of money at their disposal) next to stuff like Ghosted. And then they’ll stop greenlighting them (because again, they want money) and focus on acquiring IP and making the same type of blockbusters that he blames for killing Cinema.That’s why this whole thing is silly. It’s not one franchise or one genre. It’s the industry at large. It was in motion a long time time before the MCU, and will continue after it concludes (again).
Oh, I took “But it’s easier to blame one of the big things rather than tech companies” to mean that he should be blaming the tech companies instead of comic book movies. We’ve established that we agree on multiple things, so I think I’ll bow out here lol.
I’m not sure it’s a flex at all.
It’s all crap.Thanks for confirming.
Directed a bunch of episodes of one of the best comedy shows of all time.One of the producers of Everything Everywhere All at Once.We’ll remember him in 2033.
You will. People ‘into’ this stuff now will.People 18-25 won’t be looking back to Marvel stuff in 2033. The same way no one my age knows Bonanza was a show, let alone who made it.
Yeah that’s kind of my point, the poster said nobody would remember and I said that’s wrong. I’ve been ‘into’ things he’s worked on for 20 years now, even if that Citadel show is trash he’s still got some great stuff under his belt.
“People 18-25 won’t be looking back to Marvel stuff in 2033.”I wouldn’t assume anything like that.
You have the kind of taste that would make a decent human being rope.
That’s hilarious.
The average 18-25 year old doesn’t know who Billy Wilder, Sidney Lumet, and John Ford are or what they did. They might know Hitchcock, but only because his name was turned into an adjective. If we’re focusing on the interests and memories of 18-25 year olds, then it’s not looking good for Scorsese after he dies. Spielberg is probably the only elder statesman director who would survive that challenge.
But you’re a person your age who knows ‘Bonanza’ was a TV show. You just blew my mind!
But aren’t you your age? Didn’t you just mention Bonanza? Don’t you know it’s a show? I’ll bet you even know who made it.
LOLSure, kid, sure.
every time the conversation seems to have subsided, the debate flares up again with some new provocation. That’s partially because interviewers can’t stop asking the director to reiterate his opinions on the subject, and partially because those involved with the MCU can’t stop responding defensively to those opinions.But mainly because media outlets keep fanning the flames.I love a good feud. This is some weak shit.
Russo is a no-name Hollywood Yes Man. Scorsese is one of the last auters.
How do define auteur that Scorsese is one of the last?
clown
“Whether you agree or disagree with Scorsese’s criticism of Marvel, it’s undeniable that big blockbuster filmmaking has suppressed smaller, independent movies”It is not undeniable. This is the crux of the problem with his take. This take assumes that the change in box office over the past 10 years or so is CAUSED by the big blockbusters, as if they can somehow suppress other films. What has actually happened is people go to the movies only for big events. Usually that’s big blockbusters that make good use of the big screen and sound technology, things that people can’t get at home. It also applies to things like Barbenheimer, because that was made into an event you had to go see. Small and mi-budget movies have trouble at theaters because people prefer to just watch them at home. Big blockbusters dominating at theaters isn’t because they did something nefarious. It’s because they still hold appeal in theaters, where many other movies don’t.
“It is not undeniable.”
Yes, it is. It is an objective fact that studios are making more large, tentpole movies and fewer small-to-midsize-budgeted movies.
100% fact.
joe russo seems like a cool guy!
Go get yer shine box.
Has there ever been a time in the history of movies where there wasn’t a divide between crowd pleasers and “art” films. I mean in the 70s Marty was putting out movies to go against Star War and Jaws and also not making huge box offices. It just seems silly. Crowd pleasing movies aren’t killing theaters. If anything they are keeping them in business. Studios and streaming services are killing the art scene far more but also kinda also keeping them alive(just on smaller screens)As far as his new movie goes, maybe people just aren’t keen on watching a true story about indigenous people that mostly sidelines them for white people and is written and directed by white guys. Also it’s over three hours long with no intermission
“As far as his new movie goes, maybe people just aren’t keen on watching a true story about indigenous people that mostly sidelines them for white people and is written and directed by white guys.”
Hit the nail on the head
maybe people just aren’t keen on watching a true story about indigenous people that mostly sidelines them for white people and is written and directed by white guys. Also it’s over three hours long with no intermissionLet’s be honest with ourselves. It probably has more to do with the latter for the vast majority of people.
It’s me. I am one of those people. Oppenheimer was hard enough to sit all the way through, but this movie tacks another half hour on. And there’s no promise of a huge BOOOOAAAMMM 2/3’s of the way through to keep me engaged. It’ll be on Apple soon enough.
Why exactly is the AV Club so obsessed with Scorsese? There’s a different article about the same thing/basically nothing almost every day. He’s really not doing a whole lot of interest but making good movies. It’s like they’re circling vultures, waiting for him to say something untoward so they can pounce. Established octogenarian legend with strong opinions? There’s click bait in there somewhere!
Why is the pop culture site posting lots of articles about a major director who has just released a new movie?It’s a mystery for the ages, up there with “why is cnn.com posting lots of stories about Israel lately,” or “why is the takeout posting lots of articles about Hallowe’en food lately?”
Doesn’t seem like more than that to you? And that it’s been going on longer than Killer Moon has particularly been on the horizon? How many articles have you seen Greta Gerwig? Just saying, the degree of focus seems to disproportionate to the newsworthiness.
I didn’t see many articles on Greta Gerwig, but I did see a lot of articles about the Barbie movie. Which makes sense, Barbie’s the brand.At this point, because of his longevity and success rate, Marty himself is the brand, so that’s where the article focus is.
Another one today. Talking about use of the word “girth.” And that’s it. Nothing else. Not a just a little weird?
I’m guessing it must come down to site traffic, if writing some half assed nonsense about Scorsese gets a lot of people clicking on it then they’ll just keep on doing it, at least until it stops working (RIP Random Roles, out of all of the wonderful things that the AV Club once published, I miss you the most).
in this case he didn’t even say anything untoward! someone said something untoward about him!
Not just clickbait, rage-bait.These articles generate a lot of argument in the comments, which is apparently good for their engagement metrics.
I think the most charitable reason is the he made a negative comment about the most popular franchise in Hollywood, and it’s a good excuse to talk about a real artist on a site that mostly covers junk pop culture these days.
Scorcese has forgotton more about cinema & filmmaking than most people will learn in a lifetime.
“it’s undeniable that big blockbuster filmmaking has suppressed smaller, independent movies, and it’s factual that Scorsese has made serious efforts to preserve film history.”
Would you like a napkin to clean up after you were done glazing him?
This debate is beyond tired and needs to stop being dredged up by the media. Scorsese committed a fallacy about what counts as movies, but the butt-hurt snaps from Marvel/Disney just make them look like sore winners. Let it go.
Wait, someone gave Scorcese $200 million fucking dollars to make a period piece?I mean, the movie is probably great but how the fuck do you expect to get that budget back?I mean There Will Be Blood had a budget of $25 million. Even Dances With Wolves, after adjusting for inflation, was about $50 million in today dollars.I hope most that budget is just offsetting lost box office income from streaming, cause if not, what the fuck.
It might be wishful thinking, but I hope it’s revealed in a few years that the movie was a huge scheme to embezzle a bunch of money out of Hollywood and to the Osage.
Apple TV has the war chest to write this off as a prestige accomplishment.
do you understand that apple’s market cap is 2 trillion something, and their cash reserves are big enough that they’re going to buy Disney pretty soon and it won’t even be a big deal? They aren’t operating according to the logic of a hollywood studio.
DeNiro and Dicaprio don’t come cheap I guess
“I mean, the movie is probably great but how the fuck do you expect to get that budget back?”
Imagine thinking that’s the reason Scorsese made the movie…
I presume Uwe Boll’s dog is named German Tax Loophole.
I am terrified to ponder what Neil Breen named his dog.
It definitely wasn’t Midnight Movie
Name one movie that hasn’t gotten made because Marvel exists. Hell, I’ll make it simpler: name one movie that hasn’t gotten made so that Scorsese could spend nearly half a billion dollars on his last two movies.
Scorsese took a giant dump on the superhero genre. He deserves some shade.
This whole feud strikes me as the theater kids versus the football jocks. As in, it’s ok to hate both sides of this dispute.