• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Mel Gibson Says That Marvel Films Are Violent "Without Conscience"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Medieval men swinging swords at each other in a battlefield.... Were you expected anything but gore? In braveheart the gore and violence have context, in Passion of the Christ the gore and violence serve purpose, to underline the suffering of Christ (it worked too, when you see people crying in the theaters).

Braveheart was an epic piece of Oscar fluff that also has zero conscience. It was made to win awards. And yeah, the target audience cried during Passion. They also went out and bought a shit ton of movie-related merchandise.

His criticism could be directed at most movies. Not all screen violence has to "have a conscience." It's a silly and pretentious thing to say. And I don't give a shit about comic movies.
 
Maybe he saw Deadpool and saw the word Marvel, so is referring to that film

I actualy think Deadpool's violence has more of a point than the violence in the usual Marvel trash, because at least Deadpool is a spoof of, and might even be an insightful commentary on, the Marvel movie tropes, which include consequenceless cartoon violence.
 
Braveheart was an epic piece of Oscar fluff that also has zero conscience. It was made to win awards. And yeah, the target audience cried during Passion. They also went out and bought a shit ton of movie-related merchandise.

His criticism could be directed at most movies. Not all screen violence has to "have a conscience." It's a silly and pretentious thing to say. And I don't give a shit about comic movies.

Oh come on lol.

The entire film has continual threads of consequences and an active conscience of violence. Violence against the subjugated. Violence against woman both systematically through rape and then on a personal level that sparks a revolution. The violence within that revolution itself, including the battles themselves and the aftermath, and then in the end the willingness of a person to endure horrific violence to himself and how that sacrifice affects those around him. Whether its aims were to win oscars or not doesn't erase that fact. It's not sub triple layered commentary on human violence but it certainly has care given to the violence that is there.
 
Well they do have that problem (to varying extents by film) but then so do many action films including some of Mel's own.

It's an inherent issue with having exciting action scenes meant to thrill in pg and pg13 films that also try to have some lightweight ethics.
 
Mad Max 2? That was pretty violent (it's been years since I've seen the first one but I'm sure that was too). Lethal Weapon?

I thought Apocalypto was a great movie, but could it not have got the same message across without such graphic violence? Not to mention what poor ol' Jesus went through.

The last movie I noticed Mel appear in was Machete Kills and I know which movie out of that or Captain America I would let my child watch.

I miss legit star Mel Gibson, before he went batshit crazy (or openly so).
 
a9FguF4.gif

Violence with a conscience
 
I kinda agree with him. When you look at how violence and collateral damage were viewed in MOS compared to Avengers and how MOS's reception lead to Age of Ultron having the Avengers focus a lot on saving people than tackling Ultron. Similar shit was seen in BVS with a fight in an empty dock and in Civil War in an empty airport.

And it was very noticeable and silly. Makes me wonder what DC and Marvel will do for Justice League and Infinty War. Neither Thanos or Steppenwolf seem like the kind of guys who care about mass collateral damage. And the heroes cant save everyone.
 
And it was very noticeable and silly. Makes me wonder what DC and Marvel will do for Justice League and Infinty War. Neither Thanos or Steppenwolf seem like the kind of guys who care about mass collateral damage. And the heroes cant save everyone.

Marvel will claim 60 people died off screen, DC will claim a billion died onscreen
 
I will say it's odd how killing is no big deal for these characters that, to our knowledge, haven't killed before. Thor is the exception for characters we've seen origins for. But I don't think the movies aspire to be more than entertaining blockbusters.
 
Recently there was a thread where Mel Gibson shared his thoughts on Batman v Superman. Here he is now with his take on the MCU.





More at the link.



Maybe just quote the original source. He doesn't even say MCU, just Marvel movies.

“[The action] almost has to be — I don’t mean to be callous about it — but it has to be like a sporting event,” Gibson explains, calling his mentor Miller a “scientist” of screen action. “You have to know who’s who, who your protagonists are, who’s doing what, what screen direction it’s all going in. In the midst of that, you have to have what appears to be chaos. It’s ordered chaos.”

Gibson laments what he sees as the “violence without conscience” of many modern films. “To talk about the violence question, look at any Marvel movie,” he says, dismissively. “They’re more violent than anything that I’ve done, but [in my movies,] you give a s--- about the characters, which makes it matter more. That’s all I’ll say.”

I'm not sure what he means by "more violent that I've done" and caring about the characters, but maybe it's the destruction without adressing the consequence and that the (superhero) characters don't really get hurt and that you know that they probably survive.
 
I think he does have a point, but he's a hypocrite. His movies have little to do with this discussion imo, but the guy recently starred in "The Expendables 3". It doesn't get more "violent without conscience" than this.
 
I will say it's odd how killing is no big deal for these characters that, to our knowledge, haven't killed before. Thor is the exception for characters we've seen origins for. But I don't think the movies aspire to be more than entertaining blockbusters.

The majority of MCU protagonists so far have either been special agents, been involved with the government and/or other private groups, are of alien origin with possible differences with humans in regards to morality, or are criminals. It's not that much of a stretch.
 
While I get how the comic book movies (especially MCU movies) are being churned out like crazy with very little difference with how they're structured or paced or how memorable supporting characters are.

But and this is a big but, Gibson doesn't have a leg to stand on because look no further than Expendables. Forgettable as shit.
 
While I get how the comic book movies (especially MCU movies) are being churned out like crazy with very little difference with how they're structured or paced or how memorable supporting characters are.

But and this is a big but, Gibson doesn't have a leg to stand on because look no further than Expendables. Forgettable as shit.

I don't think him being in The Expendables prevents him from ever having an opinion.

It's like saying an alcoholic can't say that drinking alcohol is bad.

But I think the point about Marvel films is valid. The answer to everything in these movies/TV shows is always violence, hence the superpowers. They basically represent how the US deals with the world.
 
The majority of MCU protagonists so far have either been special agents, been involved with the government and/or other private groups, are of alien origin with possible differences with humans in regards to morality, or are criminals. It's not that much of a stretch.

And yet in the comics they're all anti killing unless they have to. Even then it's seen as a sign of villainy to come
 
Well, I guess he doesn't accept it for the sanitized cornball violence fun that it is. Sure they're punching each other in the face and what not but none of those movies are trying to make a statement. It's escapism.
 
Wow at all the shup up and go back into obscurity posts, can't the man have an opinion?

Besides, it's not like super hero movies are super responsible about their handling of violence, most times is there because it's "cool" and entertaining.
 
The majority of MCU protagonists so far have either been special agents, been involved with the government and/or other private groups, are of alien origin with possible differences with humans in regards to morality, or are criminals. It's not that much of a stretch.

Talking about their first, hence why Thor is an exception. We're introduced to him when he's already out and in the thick of fighting. With the rest, we see them have no hesitation or remorse about killing for the first time. Again, not the movies they're trying to make but it's odd nonetheless.
 
Talking about their first, hence why Thor is an exception. We're introduced to him when he's already out and in the thick of fighting. With the rest, we see them have no hesitation or remorse about killing for the first time. Again, not the movies they're trying to make but it's odd nonetheless.

Yeah, Tony Stark builds armor and then immediately goes and kills terrorists. Dude does not care.
 
I think he does have a point, but he's a hypocrite. His movies have little to do with this discussion imo, but the guy recently starred in "The Expendables 3". It doesn't get more "violent without conscience" than this.

While I get how the comic book movies (especially MCU movies) are being churned out like crazy with very little difference with how they're structured or paced or how memorable supporting characters are.

But and this is a big but, Gibson doesn't have a leg to stand on because look no further than Expendables. Forgettable as shit.

I don't think using his acting role in The Expendables, a movie in which he has no creative control over, is a very good example of his "hypocrisy".
 
Coincidentally, he says this as his film opens the same weekend as a Marvel film that beat his in the box office. I'm sure that had nothing to do with him making this observation.

Anyways, ironically Doctor Strange is also a movie where (movie spoilers)
he has a moral dilemma in how he had pledge an oath to never take a life even though he's being told he needs to kill to save others. He has several times after where he tries to beat people with his intellect instead of resorting to violence. In fact, in the 3rd act he defeats an enemy with sacrifice instead of violence, something like Jesus, Mel.

Pretty big change when pretty much every other Marvel movies has all of it's heroes solving problems with violence.
 
Gibson laments what he sees as the “violence without conscience” of many modern films. “To talk about the violence question, look at any Marvel movie,” he says, dismissively. “They’re more violent than anything that I’ve done, but [in my movies,] you give a s--- about the characters, which makes it matter more. That’s all I’ll say.”

He is similarly terse when asked about the film’s central irony: that a story celebrating pacifism is notable largely for what seems at times to be an almost unhealthy fixation on blood and guts, one appealing to a sense of physical — that is, adrenal — arousal. “Hacksaw” shouldn’t be an “intellectual” experience, he argues. “I’m trying to get to your animal. That’s it. That’s war. I’m trying to make a visceral, fully emotional, immersive experience.”

Neither watched nor care about his movie, but this sounds like it is violence without conscience too.
 
He's right. The script decides when death matters and then ignores a couple later. I still can't believe the first film has everyone gushing about the Avengers so happily when tens of thousands lie dead - I mean sure you'd be very relived and proud but people are fucking grinning.
 
He's not totally wrong. Most superhero movies are like that. People mostly watch them for the explosions and cool stuff without caring about the characters. I mean it's rare for any of the main characters to die in a superhero movie so it's hard to care much for them.
 
Maybe he doesn't know the difference between Marvel and DC and only saw BvS or MoS.

Actually, these two films put thought into their violence, there's reason for it and character depth. Marvel, as much as I love it, is just violence for violence and then a joke afterwards. It's also pointless violence in the sense that it doesn't feel like it serves any purpose, or have any gravity to it, there's no repercussions.
 
If he means the fights heroes have against hordes of nameless mooks like in Avengers and Age of Ultron, he's right. Those enemies get killed in pretty disturbing ways but we don't feel anything because they are robots or ugly aliens or whatever.

Which is exactly what he's saying, but people in this thread are missing the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom