How about effete-cinephile-splainin' of Scorcese's op-ed over at The New Yorker, will that do?

Martin Scorsese’s Radical Attack on Marvel Movies, by Richard Brody under "Cultural Comment" heading, Nov. 6

Richard Brody began writing for The New Yorker in 1999 and has contributed articles about the directors François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, and Wes Anderson. Since 2005, he has been the movie-listings editor at the magazine; he writes film reviews and a blog about movies. He is the author of the book “Everything Is Cinema: The Working Life of Jean-Luc Godard” and is at work on a book about the French New Wave.

excerpt:

[....] What Scorsese is decrying is not the use of fantasy characters in movies. (A few days ago, he said that he even considered making “Joker,” though I wonder whether he was joking.) There’s a word in the first sentence of the piece that, clearly but subtly, propels the through line of his argument. He doesn’t complain about “superhero” movies; he says that, in Empire, he was speaking of “Marvel movies.” He repeats “Marvel” in the second paragraph, and then, in the third paragraph, specifies what he’s talking about: “franchise films.” Scorsese isn’t inveighing against fantasy but against a system of production that submerges directors’ authority in a network of dictates and decisions issued from the top down—a network in which the director is more of a functionary than a creator.

Scorsese doesn’t so much lament the existence of such a corporatized and impersonal mode of production as decry its dominance. He contends that this system is rooted in “the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption.” For an example of what he means, it’s worth comparing most of the superhero movies made by Marvel with another superhero movie—indeed, the ultimate superhero movie—one that Scorsese himself made, in the nineteen-eighties: “The Last Temptation of Christ.” Whereas Marvel movies are conceived in terms of fan service, to gratify the affinity and the devotion of their acolytes to the characters and the series, Scorsese made a movie, based on a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, that challenged the tradition and the orthodoxy surrounding its characters. In doing so, he encountered grave risks, risks far greater than financial matters—and so did the studio, Universal, that produced the film [....]