NS: Martin Scorsese says Marvel is 'not cinema'; James Gunn is 'saddened' by the judging

[history79]

"Martin Scorsese isn't a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The iconic filmmaker – who has directed the likes of "Taxi Driver," "Goodfellas," "The Departed" and most recently "The Irishman" – told Britain's Empire magazine that he doesn't follow along with the comic book franchise because it's "not cinema."

Instead, the Oscar-winner compared the superhero blockbusters to an amusement park. "Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well-made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks," Scorsese, 76, said.

"I don’t see them. I tried, you know?" he added. "It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being."

"Guardians of the Galaxy" director James Gunn caught wind of Scorsese's remarks, admitting that they "saddened" him.

"Martin Scorsese is one of my 5 favorite living filmmakers," Gunn, 53, tweeted Friday. "I was outraged when people picketed 'The Last Temptation of Christ' without having seen the film. I’m saddened that he’s now judging my films in the same way."

Source: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2019/10/04/martin-scorsese-says-marvel-not-cinema-james-gunn-responds/3870215002/

Comments

[cyberghostface]

Gunn has a point, I don't think Scorsese would be as openly dismissive of something like Jurassic Park just because it's a popcorn film.

[silverhammerman]

I think the conceit of a cinematic universe is what raises the distinction. Maybe I'm putting more thought into this than Scorsese did for an off the cuff remark, but there's a difference between going to see a Jurassic Park sequel because you like Jurassic Park and going to see Doctor Strange because you're invested in the world of the Avengers, a movie (the first) Doctor Strange is only vaguely connected to. I think part of the appeal of the MCU is specifically the setting and the desire by some fans to immerse themselves in a setting and a world moreso than a story.

Then again I am a salty, salty hater, so feel free to disagree.

[janegray]

But isn't the ability to induce such through immersion, evidence of the ability to convey psychological experiences?

I mean, you are literally inducing deep-rooted comfort responses in hundreds of millions of different people from different continents.

[silverhammerman]

I think I'd agree with that at least partially, but I privilege other feelings over comfort. A movie aiming to create a sense of comfort is perfectly legitimate, but to me if all a movie has going for it is that it's comforting to everyone, then it's the cinematic equivalent of a big mug of hot cocoa. Hot cocoa's great but there's a time and place and other things can be better.

[janegray]

I respectfully disagree.

In current times, suicide rates are at an all-time high and even civilians are experiencing higher and higher rates of PTSD, activists can't keep up with the burnout anymore, the gap between rich people and poor people has widened to the point that the middle class is one single medical emergency away from becoming homeless while people routinely die because they can't buy insulin (which costs $3 to make and $300 to buy), while more and more countries are making sharp turns to right-wing extremism and even outright dictatorships, and even children have had to come out of school to remind politicians that we have just a couple decades left before climate disaster kills millions.

To be quite frank, right now I'd privilege comfort over anything.

Call it "catharsis" if it makes it sound deeper.

[silverhammerman]

That's totally fair and I don't want to denigrate comforting media. The current climate has probably got a lot to do with the popularity of certain sort of shows and movies which elicit feelings of comfort, which have value, and some of which I quite enjoy myself. I do occasionally bristle at that sort of stuff because I find it patronizing or insincere when it comes from a company like Disney, but I don't mean to dismiss that stuff altogether.

My with issue the whole thing surrounding Scorsese's comments is that I think people should be able to appreciate comforting art without also needing everyone to pretend that it's objectively great art. Like, I'm fine to watch and enjoy a movie without needing to know that Martin Scorsese would also enjoy that movie.

[janegray]

I don't think anybody is pretending that the MCU movies are great art, though. Just... that they are art.

Like, obviously there is a big difference between the Mona Lisa and your average museum piece. Nevertheless, the average museum piece is still art. It may not be worth 100 million dollars like the Mona Lisa is, and may not be listed as a Absolutely Must See when tourists visit the country. But it's still not something you'd dismiss as a doodle.

Scorsese used some very antagonistic words. He didn't just say that he didn't like the movies. He went out of his way to use extremely patronising phrasing. He outright stated that the movies are not capable of making people feel emotions, which is both one of the worst insults you could use for any piece of art, and objectively wrong (people were sobbing when I went to see Endgame).

As mindsweeper said, nobody would have cared if he had just said he doesn't like the movies.

[werehawk]

I don't think there was a dry eye in the theater when I saw Endgame. If that isn't us feeling emotion, I don't know what is.

Plus, I bawled when Yondu died in GOTG 2 as someone mentioned and laughed harder than I may ever have when Star Lord flew around asking everyone for duct tape during the big fight. Two major emotions right there in GOTG 2.

Are all Marvel movies good at that? No, but you could say that about any genre and even if comic movies are not quite as good as other genres, they still can do it. (and I would argue that Scorcese is right to a limited degree in that many producers/directors in this genre (*cough* Michael Bay) go for the bombastic and action instead of the emotion because the genre lends itself to that easily. But to make a blanket statement is not right.

[commodus]

I love Scorsese's work, but this is very sad to hear. It's especially baffling considering how much lighter and more accessible his work has been since the 1990's - and how many forays he has made into pop culture himself, from appearing in The Simpsons to directing Michael Jackson's music video "Bad".

Just because Marvel's movies aren't his cup of tea, it doesn't negate them as pieces of cinema. In the old days, there would be serials of comic characters like The Shadow or Batman, so it's not as if the genre is somehow a new addition to film.

[janegray]

I'm very irritated by all the people who have been intentionally missing Gunn's point.

https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/1180159892734263299

Person: LMAO WAIT YOURE REALLY COMPARING RELIGIOUS PROTESTS TO TEMPTATION TO SCORSESE SAYING THE MCU MOVIES ARE THEME PARK RIDES
Gunn: No. I’m comparing people judging films they haven’t seen to people judging films they haven’t seen.

Having a negative opinion of Marvel movies is perfectly fine. Especially if you are a talented filmmaker yourself, and therefore presumably are well-informed about the medium.

But judging an entire group of 23 very different movies, and without even bothering to watch them is completely different. And it's even worse because it comes from an important filmmaker, who should presumably be familiar with the scorn that movies and fiction have long been subjected to.

And even if you ignore the fact that Guardians of the Galaxy is not Iron Man is not Winter Soldier is not Black Panther?

GotG2, arguably the silliest of the MCU movies, made me bawl my eyes out when Yondu died. "Can't convey emotions" my ass.

[daningram.insanejournal.com]

"GotG2, arguably the silliest of the MCU movies, made me bawl my eyes out when Yondu died. "Can't convey emotions" my ass."

Seriously. Or when Cap had to power through Peggy's dementia in Winter Soldier, or T'Challa forgiving Zemo, or almost all the scenes with Loki.

Marvel movies aren't perfect and I wouldn't call them high art, but the actors are excellent. They combine actual acting/emotion with action movies, the key to their success, IMO

[matrix_dragon]

Oh god, the Winter Soldier scene with Peggy. Makes me tear up even thinking of it.

[shadowkat]

Thank you.

It's really no different than how academics and various literary writers/publishers have stigmatized comic books and graphic novels -- calling them "pedestrian" or "juvenile" or "I stopped reading those when I was a kid". They've never read the comics or if they have, they've only read a few.

I don't have issues with people critiquing the films -- if they've seen them, or critiquing comics that they've read -- but denounce or deride something you've never read or seen...

In a way it is no different than someone stating that Scorsese's films are all just pulpy gangster films with no true value. (They aren't, I've seen them, but I've also seen people deride them as just being violent films with no point and furthering white male privilege. (Which I do not agree with.) When in truth -- Scorsese has done so much more than that...and many of his films aren't gangster films.)

Or how people have derided or denounced the romance, science fiction and fantasy genres as not being worthy and just pulp. Just because they aren't to someone's personal taste doesn't mean they are bad. And unless the individual has literally read all the romance, sci-fi, and fantasy novels on the planet (and good luck with that), they can't say that.

Same with superhero films -- they are different. I've seen all of them, so feel I can say that with some authority. (I happen to love them and I think they are art, and some of them are as good as anything Scorsese has done.) I've also seen most if not all of Scorsese's films -- some I'd say are brilliant, some I'd say are pure crap and do not waste your money. But I also think it's subjective, it's really hard to judge books, movies, music etc objectively -- or any art. We all perceive it differently. And at the end of the day, our opinion of it is just our own. Scorsese doesn't like superhero films and prefers gangster movies...he should just say that. Nothing else is required.

[laughing_tree]

Scorsese isn’t judging them sight unseen though. He says he gave them a try. How much is that? I don’t know. But the movies, while different from one another, are hardly SO different than a person can’t make generalizations after seeing a few. At the end of the day, there is still an MCU aesthetic.

[janegray]

"Gave it a try" is too vague for me. It could mean that he watched a few, or it could mean that he started watching one and stopped after half a hour.

Even then, you've got to admit it's incredibly arrogant to claim that something is incapable of conveying emotions, when there is empirical evidence that countless people were strongly emotionally affected. He should have just said that the movies failed to move him.

One could of course argue that the guy who has spent 40 years making critically acclaimed movies has earned the right to be incredibly arrogant. But, earned or not, arrogance is still going to irritate people.

[silverhammerman]

I mean, Scorsese is a 76 year old filmmaking legend, is it really surprising to see him say this? Moreover, he seems to be talking specifically about the MCU and noting that he's given them a chance, so it's not like he's dismissing superheroes as a genre out of hand, he's talking about a specific creative endeavor which has been roundly criticized by many, many people. I mean, I'm sure this stings if you're James Gunn, but for real, how fucking insecure are people that we need Martin Scorsese to offering effusive praise of something like Avengers Endgame? These movies are clearly not for him and it's his personal opinion, it doesn't matter.

I mean, I've copped to being burnt out on the MCU, but the dude is right. There are some good Marvel movies but it can feel at times like the goal is less to tell a story than to provide another chance for audiences to revisit the setting they've grown attached to.

Sidenote: Gotta love the USA Today website guilting me about using an AdBlocker when I can see that I've blocked 61 separates ads on this one article.

[mindsweeper]

I don’t think it’s about insecurity as much as the arrogance, rudeness and elitism of the comment. If he’d just said that he doesn’t like them as personal taste, maybe, but he declared them “not cinema”, like he’s the arbiter.

I’m not surprised he doesn’t like them. I’m surprised he’s such a pompous ass about it.

[silverhammerman]

I wouldn't agree with characterizing his statement as arrogant or elitist: he's Martin Scorsese, he gets to talk like he knows a lot about movies because he actually does. I'll agree that it might be a little rude, but he's being critical and as criticism goes it's not the worst I've heard.

[mazway_75]

I'm not a huge fan of the AV Club but I did like their article on this: "Nerds shocked revered 76 year old filmmaker of gritty, grounded crime dramas is not a fan of comic book blockbusters."

[ap0cryphal]

I can't believe we're having the ITS NOT ART / I DONT LIKE IT / HOW DARE ANYONE MALIGN THIS VENERABLE COLOSSUS debate again. Wait, actually, no I absolutely can.

Why does fandom need Scorsece's seal of approval? Is the absence of glowing adoration from venerated filmmakers going to ruin folks' enjoyment of the films?

I find it particularly telling that when it comes to properties we buy into, the gut reaction against criticism is HOW DARE YOU HATE THIS MAGNIFICENT THING FULL OF ALL THE FEELS.

Criticism is relative; if you want to hold it up as art, it has to face critiques of substance and form and those critiques may not necessary be pleasant. But the criticism doesn't negate the existence of the things you enjoy, for the love of god.

[mesmiranda]

Criticism is relative; if you want to hold it up as art, it has to face critiques of substance and form and those critiques may not necessary be pleasant.

So I agree with your post.

At the same time, I do want to posit a question: what definition of "art" (substitute "art" for "cinema" in Scorsece's argument) are we using?

I don't think Marvel movies are above criticism. I could stand to see them shake up the formula and ease off on the jokes/one-liners/wacky action scenes. But silverhammerman and janegray have talked about 'comforting fiction' and genre fiction getting a bad rap, and I do think there's this conception that real art is gritty, and depressing, and deals with stuff like infidelity and crime/violence and the banality of modern life, and makes you uncomfortable or disturbed. Like how Game of Thrones is supposed to be "Lord of the Rings, but realistic!"

And just.. what an awful way to look at art. How bleak and boring and limiting. So what if the story has someone putting on a cape and spandex and beating a bad guy to save the planet? That can still be great art.

[ap0cryphal]

It's a simplistic way to put it, but IMHO the definition of art - and by extension, the nature of the critique - depend on the critics and the perspectives they bring to bear.

This is why I can't see Scorsese being a great authority on whether the marvel multimedia franchises are capital a ART. Pulp yarns (westerns, noir, crime) weren't considered art if you go back half a century - it was stuff for the plebs to consume. Go back further, and theater was an opiate for the masses to consume, full of tawdry happenings, pulp intrigue, outlandish and grotesque villains, exaggerated and caricatured stereotypes.

My pragmatic answer is this: comic book movies haven't existed in the landscape long enough to be considered art by the people who make such judgements for society at large. Pulp is for the commoners, until it isn't. Theater is for the masses, until it isnt. TV is for the braindead, until it isn't. (What the hell is prestige tv, anyway?)

[janegray]

Oh, btw.

Martin Scorsese absolutely loves Westerns and has long been frustrated over people dismissing them as mindless entertainment.

But then he goes and bashes superhero movies.

Okay.

[commodus]

That right there is the biggest irritant for me personally. Scorsese is a huge film buff, he should know that escapist cinema is nothing new, and even that genres he likes can use a formulaic structure from time to time.

Maybe it's a generational thing? Though I hope when I'm his age I'm not so close-minded.

[akodo_rokku]

I mean when you've been making millions of dollars and had an entire industry telling you you're the best at what they do ever for 40+ years it's easy to get a little out of touch.

[tcampbell1000]

Y'know, I do get exercised when Alan Moore or Garth Ennis go toe-to-toe with the superhero genre, which is certainly no less dominant in comics than in movies. But when movie directors or stars do it, all I can muster is a shrug. I think the difference is that we're only hearing about Scorsese voicing his disdain once, and it sounds like even that was at the interviewer's invitation, whereas for Ennis especially, superhero beef may qualify as a second career.

[arthur_wynne]

It's an unnecessarily smug and condescending way to put it, but the substance of it is 100% correct IMO.

If you had told Young Me that not only would there one day be a two-part Hollywood blockbuster adapted from the Infinity Saga, but that I wouldn't even bother to see it in theaters, I would not have believed you, but here we are.

[mazway_75]

I get some slam Scorsese for thinking it's just mindless entertainment but I agree with him. I do think a difference between "movies" and "cinema,", the latter much deeper and more meaning.

I like Gunn, Russos and Whedon but come on, there's no way they're on the same level of filmmaking as Scorsese by any means. If you don't like his opinion, fine but he's more than earned the right to speak his mind on films better than most.

[lego_joker]

... and in other news, today it was discovered that Burger King's newest regional manager doesn't have a whole lotta nice things to say about McDonald's.

Kinda walking in the middle of opinions...

[silverzeo]

I think the MCU is one of the greatest achievements in terms of cinema, entertainment, and comic book accomplishments....

That I felt only happen thanks to the deep, deep, deep pockets of the mouse himself to get it all through... no way anyone else would have given AntMan a chance like they did... or like the live action remakes of their already famous animated movies (is it TRUE that the lion King remake out did Endgame?)

And with all the hype and build that was Endgame, with ads saying how it was "the" end to it all... everyone knew it would be. We knew there would be more movies, not just because he heard early announcements of them, but because we knew they could and can keep this franchise going...

And much like South Park: Fractured But Whole: That's the main concept of it all now: A totally long lasting over complicated franchise to make money and sell merch.

I kinda DIDN'T want Endgame to beat James Cameron's Avatar, because I believe with the title of "Highest Grossing Movie Ever", it also comes with "Most OverHype Movie Ever" too...

And soon EVERYBODY is trying to the do the same thing too. Make a big something or under fund everything else... I mean, earlier this week, Dreamworks made a spin-off series for How to Train Your Dragon in which they borrow the same book from Rescue Bots/Paw Patrol...

But hey, all of that is pretty much standard Hollywood business in general.

For more personal matters for myself...

A factor that I feel makes me distant to the MCU is how it pretty seems to overshadows everything else done in comics. It doesn't matter how good the story or source material is, if it not done in a #1 box office movie, than it is pretty much considered to be nothing....

Which is why I feel like why most comics seem to be half-assing in some titles, they just trying to make source material to make their movies in because they're not that creative enough to come up with original concepts or can't really try to work in some of the stuff made over the years... ditto for most of the animated shows...

Like how in the DCAU, their shows the most adult and artistic stuff that I watched as a kid. But now, most shows don't seem to try as much anymore... not unless that get another ratings and push enough merch (ie: Teen Titans Go and DC Superhero Girls).

SO yeah, long story short: I like the material and well executed it is... while kinda hating how it all for profits, to which is makes the most money it is the best by default.

[matrix_dragon]

Look, if Freddy Got Fingered and Zardoz count as cinema, I think we're gonna have to include superhero movies.

[laughing_tree]

I think it’s quite likely that Scorsese wouldn’t consider those cinema either.

[matrix_dragon]

Yeah, well, as much as everyone would like to disown some movies, they exist, we're stuck with them :)

[leahandillyana]

Who is Martin Scorses? I had to check to learn that he's the guy who adapted Nikos Kazantzakis. But I agree. Superhero movies, with a handful of exceptions, are shallow entertainment, just as their source material (I find looking for interesting comic storylines not dissimilar to searching for intersting things in trash). The same can be said of mass media in general, again, with a handful of exceptions.

[palgrave_goldenrod]

I mean, James Gunn might have a shred of a point, but...

"I was outraged when people picketed 'The Last Temptation of Christ' without having seen the film. I’m saddened that he’s now judging my films in the same way."

I mean, seriously. Those people were trying to silence a filmmaker's right to make art because it clashed with their personal beliefs. Martin Scorsese is simply expressing a dislike for a particular kind of film and admitting it's not for him. It's massively pretentious for Gunn to try and claim some kind of equal comparison.

Scorsese's just not a huge fan of the films you make, James. Naturally, that has to twinge, but he's not trying to prevent you from making them. Suck it up.

[gadz00ks]

On one hand an old man yelling at the thing popular with the young kids without giving it a chance is nothing new. And I sincerely disagree that superhero movies can't impact you at an emotional level. Calling them not cinema is just gatekeeping, who is Scorsese to say what is and isn't art?

But at the same time I do feel the genre has peaked or stagnated, and isn't really making provocative commentary on our society the way arthouse cinema is expected to. Sure we've started to sneak in minority leads which is great but overall the messages (if there is any) aren't intending to challenge the social status quo. It's entertainment first, anything else second. And sometimes it's attempts to sneak woke commentary into the movie come across a bait because these never ever go anywhere.

An example is Civil War, that starts out as a political topic of monitoring and corralling law enforcement (supers) but this is dropped in favor of an emotional story surrounding Bucky Barnes splitting Tony and Steve up. Sure it has the frame of political conflict, but none of the substance. And I love that movie, don't get me wrong, but bringing up social topics only to do nothing about them doesn't really make the movie deep. The title itself is disingenuous, as "civil war" suggests a political story but the real title is more "superhero boyfriends break up when the ex is back in town, and drag most of their friends into the squabble."

But it's not like Scorsese's full film career is all evocative socially challenging films either. However, I do feel there's been a superhero deconstruction film bubbling in the background for a while now that just hasn't taken shape yet.

Ironically Gunn's Brightburn could have been that movie, but it was less deconstruction and a more shallow "what if superman was bad?" with a dash of "nurture can't beat nature." A missed opportunity.

[wizardru]

See, I see it from the other end: the MCU offers such a litany of different story types that it hasn't stagnated, it's evolved. They certainly are mass media entertainment, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are lacking for content: they simply don't wear it on their sleeves.

Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2 both have very important messages about the ideas of 'found family', toxic masculinity, trauma and how it defines you and how to rise above the pain of your past. That's deep emotional content for a pair of films that are also rollicking space adventures. Is it less of a piece of cinema than the original Star Wars? CA: Winter Soldier is essentially the MCU's take on 'Three Days of the Condor', but with more gunplay and ultimately the same amount of introspection on it's topic. Which is greater cinematic experience? Does Martin Scorcese consider his movie 'Hugo' to not be cinema because it isn't drab and serious?

I understand what Scrocese meant in general and he's not grossly wrong. But I'm not clear on how much he's seen. If we take his comments to mean more than the MCU, it gets worse, of course. What I find most incorrect in his statements is the idea that these films convey no emotional or connection between either their characters or the between the film and the audience. That's demonstrably untrue.

[gadz00ks]

The key word is emotional stories, as the Marvel Cinematic universe is certainly able to deliver emotion of several different flavors. But the problem is these are very individual focused stories, focused on how a specific person or a small group feels about something. They don't tackle systemic issues facing entire societies, despite liking to flirt with the topics.

And not that there's anything bad with emotionally driven character focused stories, and there is infinite potential within that sector.

But when an entire genre is avoiding certain themes you almost see a glass ceiling on where superhero stories can't travel into. And it gets frustrating that these themes are used as background but pushed aside over and over again in favor of personal emotional stories.

Winter Soldier is still guilty of this, as while it wears the clothes of a political thriller, at it's core it's more about action and fighting a brainwashed friend than saying anything meaningful about giving up liberties for security. The fact that everyone bad is a member of Hydra, is the "it's just some bad apples" mentality of dodging criticism at any entity.

And once again, I love emotion driven stories and still thing Scorsese is fundamentally wrong. But I do feel that the superhero genre isn't that deep socio-politically.

[wizardru]

"They don't tackle systemic issues facing entire societies, despite liking to flirt with the topics."

Well, that's a different discussion entirely from what Scorcese said, which was :"It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being."

Which is practically the cornerstore of both GotG movies, which is why Gunn expressed disappointment. And again, I agree that Winter Soldier uses some of it's deeper issues as window dressing on the main story, which is the depths of friendship and it's importance (not just Cap and Bucky but between Cap and Falcon/Widow, as well, who follow him when he goes rogue). My point in bringing WS up is that its very highly mimics 'Three Days of the Condor' in terms of story and structure and similarly doesn't really engage with its underpinning story principles, as it's ultimately a spy thriller and has even less emotional heft, but it justifiably viewed as great example of its genre. I get that Scorcese feels the MCU and superhero movies in general have little heft to them and I agree with him and you in that regard: they are not meant to hold that weight right now. But I take issue with the idea that it's not conveying emotional experiences: more than once the MCU has brought me to tears. Yondu's funeral in GotG2 destroys me, from Peter's eulogy to the vindication of his fellows to Rocket's response and the powerful musical choice used. To me, that is the VERY ESSENCE of the power of cinema and it surprises me that Scorcese isn't willing to engage with it.

Now, you are correct: most superhero movies aren't rising to the level of social commentary (though I'd argue that Captain Marvel in particular does and Guardians has a lot to say if you're listening (watch Lindsay Ellis' critical discussion on youtube, if you're interested). BUT, Scorcese himself has a soft spot for Westerns, a genre that he feels is maligned and under-appreciated: 'Young Guns" is certainly a silly popcorn movie in that genre...but then you've got films like 'High Noon' (which indirectly takes on McCarthyism) hidden in the framework of a Western. You've got 'Pale Rider', which is absolutely a variation on 'Shane' (itself a more complicated movie) that is intended as a crowd-pleaser...but then you've got 'Unforgiven', which is clearly making commentary on much more. My point is that the genre CAN have that kind of movie, it just hasn't, yet. That it hasn't aspired to go beyond being highly entertaining and emotionally engaging stories to 'socially relevant' stories is a matter of time, not genre capacity, IMHO.

[gadz00ks]

Yes, I agree that my criticism greatly differs from Scorsese's tweet, who is absolutely wrong that these movies can't convey emotion. I will not contest that, I too love the Yondu funeral scene. But I just feel that in attacking the wrong thing he accidentally tripped over something worth critiquing about the superhero genre.

I have seen Lindsay Ellis' video on GOTG vol 2, but while we're on the subject I'd look at her Woke Disney vlog or anything from Renegade Cut on superhero films if you need to understand where I'm coming from.

And I think we're in agreement that the genre CAN have biting socio political commentary... but likely won't because of how and why these movies are made.

[lordultimus]

Samuel L. Jackson Responds to Martin Scorsese’s Marvel Comments

I will note that Scorsese only said this because he was asked his opinion, this isn't a Bill Mahr scenario where he said that Trump wouldn't have gotten elected in an America where the MCU happened after Stan Lee died.