He made Blade Runner when he was younger and still cared. He's a senile old fart now and is only making movies to keep himself moving otherwise he'll be herded into a retirement home.
Blade Runner was him adapting a short sci-fi book and ripping the looks from the cyberpunk movement. With Napoleon he had to adapt history and that's way harder for a brainlet who refuses to read history books.
>Sir Ridley Scott and screenwriter David Scarpa rejected Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon script as being underwhelming, but kept 80% of the structure, scenes, and development. The rest Scarpa wrote was unhistorical and for pure entertainment.
kwab
Probably when you are a younger unaclaimed director you are on more equal footing with other professionals, while as you get old you get surrounded by a bunch of yesmen who think you are a genius or pretend it.
that was 40 years ago
but i'm starting to think he was never any good
he got lucky with Blade Runner
which, lets face it, was a tad overrated
his brother was actually better and made better movies
>which, lets face it, was a tad overrated
Exactly. Now the film is considered a masterpiece or something, but people tend to overlook the fact that it needed about 27 re-editings to get to a great version. Alien is his great film and that's it.
He stopped caring around Gladiator and just takes scripts where he can pee and poop over everything. He really loves taking historical narratives and giving them a "modern" spin. Second Crusade in Kingdom of Heaven = 9/11, The Last Duel = Me Too, Napoleon = Probably Brexit or just "frick France" or something I dunno I can't be bothered to watch
Ridley Scott has never been a consistent director. For every Blade Runner or Gladiator there’s a Kingdom of Heaven or GI Jane.
But the thing is he takes chances and is a remarkably diverse director across genres. Scorsese (and Nolan and Anderson and..) just do variations on the same themes and characters they’ve always directed (often even the same actors). Spielberg would never take on a horror/thriller like Alien, he can’t get beyond sentimentality. I’d love to see Cameron direct a simple film without CGI.
Scott has managed to direct some legitimate masterpieces, stuff that other directors go back for inspiration/theft. Others, that didn’t work, didn’t work for pretty subjective reasons … theyre all well directed, written, acted, shot, edited … but it’s didn’t come together as a whole to a level he set with his best. frankly, I’d argue, there are few filmmakers that come with such high expectations before a release and audiences and critics are more critical because of it.
The only other director that seems to take ch ave, but loss so than Scott, is PTA. But even all his films are essentially semi-ensemble dramadies that like to shine a spotlight on the top billing stars… oscar baitish.
'Napoleon' was a dud. I was expecting 'Gladiator part deux'. You do get some Bary Lyndon vibes off it and not only because of the time period. But it's better to just watch 'Barry Lyndon' instead. Went to see it with two friends and they were both kinda disappointed too.
He made Blade Runner when he was younger and still cared. He's a senile old fart now and is only making movies to keep himself moving otherwise he'll be herded into a retirement home.
Moviegoers suffer because directors refuse to pay for 24hour care at posh resorts + private medical staff.
He’s old and explosively overrated.
He hasn’t made a decent movie in literal decades.
He routinely takes some of the biggest stars on earth and drubs them in the mud and creates trash movies with them
>He made Blade Runner when he was younger
younger?
Ridley Scott was fricking 45 years old when he made Blade Runner
45 is middle aged and people are generally of sound mind at that age
ridley is almost 90 now and it shows
Probably took the credit of the entire group
At a certain point, directors need to retire from making films.
That’s why Tarantino said he’d only make 10 movies
Death Proof already suck. Why stop at 10?
Broken clock is still right twice a day
Blade Runner was him adapting a short sci-fi book and ripping the looks from the cyberpunk movement. With Napoleon he had to adapt history and that's way harder for a brainlet who refuses to read history books.
>Sir Ridley Scott and screenwriter David Scarpa rejected Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon script as being underwhelming, but kept 80% of the structure, scenes, and development. The rest Scarpa wrote was unhistorical and for pure entertainment.
kwab
Why isn't Scarpa getting any heat?
he isn't the one out there telling critics "you weren't there so shut the frick up"
>The Duellists
>Alien
>Blade Runner
Has any other director started out so strong and fallen so quickly and precipitously?
I liked Gladiator, but yea
No.
He hasn't made a good movie since Apocalypse Now.
Dracula was decent
but no great movies since Apocalypse Now, that is true. and unfortunate considering his talent or the talent he used to have.
Scorsese did a great job at it, he's still got it and that's great to see he actually cared for the history.
I hope that metropolis movie hits it out of the park.
>He doesn't rate Outsiders, Rumble Fish, Rain Maker, Godfather Coda or Dracula
The Martian is good tho
Blade Runner is mid though
He didn't. His crew did.
Its called being washed up.
>were you there? No? Then suckle my greasy butthole.
Weird how he started off his career with a pretty good period piece then the rest have all been shit.
younger, less jaded
Creatively burnt out decades ago
Seems to happen to most directors
Probably when you are a younger unaclaimed director you are on more equal footing with other professionals, while as you get old you get surrounded by a bunch of yesmen who think you are a genius or pretend it.
Happens with rulers as well.
that was 40 years ago
but i'm starting to think he was never any good
he got lucky with Blade Runner
which, lets face it, was a tad overrated
his brother was actually better and made better movies
>which, lets face it, was a tad overrated
Exactly. Now the film is considered a masterpiece or something, but people tend to overlook the fact that it needed about 27 re-editings to get to a great version. Alien is his great film and that's it.
He stopped caring around Gladiator and just takes scripts where he can pee and poop over everything. He really loves taking historical narratives and giving them a "modern" spin. Second Crusade in Kingdom of Heaven = 9/11, The Last Duel = Me Too, Napoleon = Probably Brexit or just "frick France" or something I dunno I can't be bothered to watch
Ridley Scott has never been a consistent director. For every Blade Runner or Gladiator there’s a Kingdom of Heaven or GI Jane.
But the thing is he takes chances and is a remarkably diverse director across genres. Scorsese (and Nolan and Anderson and..) just do variations on the same themes and characters they’ve always directed (often even the same actors). Spielberg would never take on a horror/thriller like Alien, he can’t get beyond sentimentality. I’d love to see Cameron direct a simple film without CGI.
Scott has managed to direct some legitimate masterpieces, stuff that other directors go back for inspiration/theft. Others, that didn’t work, didn’t work for pretty subjective reasons … theyre all well directed, written, acted, shot, edited … but it’s didn’t come together as a whole to a level he set with his best. frankly, I’d argue, there are few filmmakers that come with such high expectations before a release and audiences and critics are more critical because of it.
The only other director that seems to take ch ave, but loss so than Scott, is PTA. But even all his films are essentially semi-ensemble dramadies that like to shine a spotlight on the top billing stars… oscar baitish.
'Napoleon' was a dud. I was expecting 'Gladiator part deux'. You do get some Bary Lyndon vibes off it and not only because of the time period. But it's better to just watch 'Barry Lyndon' instead. Went to see it with two friends and they were both kinda disappointed too.
>Kingdom of Heaven
>bad