What Happened to Ridley Scott?
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Seriously now, every director/actor/creative person goes through periods of drought (look at the early 2000s directorial work of Woody Allen), without it being turned into a pattern...
I don't have half the love some people have on his filmography, but I would not rule him out just yet.
I think much like Steven Spielberg, Scott is now just running on auto-pilot.
To be honest though the only Ridley Scott movie I actually like is Alien. While I certainly respect Blade Runner for being one of the most masterfully shot movies ever, I just find the whole experience impossibly dull. And Gladiator... Yeah, that movie kinda sucked.
To be honest though the only Ridley Scott movie I actually like is Alien. While I certainly respect Blade Runner for being one of the most masterfully shot movies ever, I just find the whole experience impossibly dull. And Gladiator... Yeah, that movie kinda sucked.
What happened to Ridley Scott? It's simple, really: he became Important? enough to start bossing around producers and screenwriters, he gained perfect artistic freedom, and the constraints that had kept him from slipping into this kind of stuff all along came sloughing off and took his talent with them.
It's no coincidence that his two best movies were made at the very start of his career, back when he was a novice with very little clout (yes, his version of Blade Runner was infinitely superior to that of his bosses... though even the good version wasn't anywhere near as good as Dick's novel, thanks in no part to the utterly-nonsensical "Deckard is a Replicant" interpretation that Scott foisted onto the picture). Great art (often) comes from constraints and necessitated compromises.
It's no coincidence that his two best movies were made at the very start of his career, back when he was a novice with very little clout (yes, his version of Blade Runner was infinitely superior to that of his bosses... though even the good version wasn't anywhere near as good as Dick's novel, thanks in no part to the utterly-nonsensical "Deckard is a Replicant" interpretation that Scott foisted onto the picture). Great art (often) comes from constraints and necessitated compromises.
The thing about Scott's decline is that it was very gradual; it's not like a lot of other famous directors who had the ONE film where everything went wrong and they went from beloved artist to creative pariah. I mean, even his fans admitted he had a few duds even before this happened. Anticipation for Robin Hood, Prometheus, and even Exodus had high hopes from people, but then they went to the theater and wondered what the hell happened.
The guy's importance to film will never be denied, but it looks like his twilight years are gonna be his mediocre ones.
The guy's importance to film will never be denied, but it looks like his twilight years are gonna be his mediocre ones.
Okay, I'll say it -- I loved Prometheus. LOVED IT. One of my favorite films in recent memory. I understand some of the gripes about the film, but terming it a "disaster" is a little over the top. I'll also defend Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut), which is underrated.
That said....I do think there is a trend with some of Scott's films lately in terms of them being bloated and unfocused. The most extreme example of this Robin Hood, which is hands down one of the worst, more boring movies I've seen in the last decade. And Bob's description of Body of Lies was pretty spot on -- it was solid but forgettable.
I'll also buck the trend here by saying Matchstick Men was terrible. If you couldn't see the "twist" coming from miles away, then you need your head checked.
That said....I do think there is a trend with some of Scott's films lately in terms of them being bloated and unfocused. The most extreme example of this Robin Hood, which is hands down one of the worst, more boring movies I've seen in the last decade. And Bob's description of Body of Lies was pretty spot on -- it was solid but forgettable.
I'll also buck the trend here by saying Matchstick Men was terrible. If you couldn't see the "twist" coming from miles away, then you need your head checked.
It could be that we just had too high of expectations for Ridley Scott himself. Maybe his good films were always contingent on having good producers and screenwriters who could push back on stuff, and once he became Big Enough that he more thoroughly had control of the films he was making he started slipping. People say the same thing about George Lucas, and I know it definitely happens with authors.
Pretty much matched my sentiment. Ridley Scott has always been hit or miss with me.Exley97 said:
I think that for many people, and this comes out especially with artists, they have something to say early on and then when they finally get to say it, and everyone goes "Yup!" then they get successful.
Which is awesome, right? Artists need to eat. Except that most artists then lose touch with what gave them something to say. And because they are successful, nobody is out there telling them, "No, this doesn't work" or really challenging them anymore. The artist must be right, right? S/He's made MONEY, right? They've got awards, right?
But artists thrive on challenge. Challenge is what inspires people-sometimes horrible, awful challenges, but not always. And not every challenge--or, there is a difference between challenged and crushed (as he may have felt after his brother died).
Scott's decline comes post Gladiator and I think it's because he's not being challenged anymore.
Which is awesome, right? Artists need to eat. Except that most artists then lose touch with what gave them something to say. And because they are successful, nobody is out there telling them, "No, this doesn't work" or really challenging them anymore. The artist must be right, right? S/He's made MONEY, right? They've got awards, right?
But artists thrive on challenge. Challenge is what inspires people-sometimes horrible, awful challenges, but not always. And not every challenge--or, there is a difference between challenged and crushed (as he may have felt after his brother died).
Scott's decline comes post Gladiator and I think it's because he's not being challenged anymore.
It's an interesting question to ask, since it's certainly not like M. Night Shyamalan. But to be honest, I didn't think even Gladiator was that great. From what I've seen of his work in the 2000s, his biggest movies seem to have this odd trend of having incredible visuals and cinematography coupled with weak, hokey and sometimes downright terrible scripts (cough Prometheus) where characters say things and then some things happen without much sense of weight or consequence.
But then there's American Gangster, which is IMO a very well-written film. It's really weird.
But then there's American Gangster, which is IMO a very well-written film. It's really weird.
Interesting how you bring up Tony Scott. For everything Ridley is known for, no one talks about Tony anymore, as if he didn't contribute anything to the art of movie making.
Well... except the fact he INVENTED the Michael Bay aesthetic which Michael Bay owes everything towards. But actually made pretty decent movies with it. I remember back in 1995 seeing the movie The Rock and thinking I was seeing a Tony Scott movie. For better or worse, no one will stfu about Michael Bay and his militaristic America-fuck-yeah wankfests, yet, no one wants to remember the guy that gave us Top Gun. Hmm...?
:/
Well... except the fact he INVENTED the Michael Bay aesthetic which Michael Bay owes everything towards. But actually made pretty decent movies with it. I remember back in 1995 seeing the movie The Rock and thinking I was seeing a Tony Scott movie. For better or worse, no one will stfu about Michael Bay and his militaristic America-fuck-yeah wankfests, yet, no one wants to remember the guy that gave us Top Gun. Hmm...?
:/
Another thing to remember about Scott -- he's always been a polarizing filmmaker with critics/audiences. Remember that Blade Runner was decimated by critics when it first came out (they called it "Bored Runner" and "Blade Crawler") and was a box office disappointment. Only in later years was it considered a sci-fi classic. Ditto, to a lesser degree, for Alien. The film was criticized for being slow and excessively gory (I believe it was actually rated X in the UK) and while it did well at the box office, it was another film that grew in prestige over the years and wasn't considered a true classic until a more than a decade after its initial release.Michael Tabbut said:
So while there's little chance we'll bbe sitting here 20 years from now seeing Robin Hood labeled as a classic or watching Body of Lies be inducted into the Library of Congress as a historic work, I do think the years may be kinder to films like Prometheus and even The Counselor (which I didn't enjoy but can't seem to forget).
Here I was hoping to we could solve the Riddle of Ridley Scott (yes, I went there, and no, I do not apologize for it). I haven't seen the director's cut of Blade Runner or Kingdom of Heaven, but the versions I watched were good. Although it was pretty confusing for Kingdom to give ALL the white guys English accents so you shouldn't tell where they came from (France, Germany, etc.). Gladiator and American Gangster were fucking awesome, but Prometheus? That was the first movie I really payed attention to the viral marketing of a movie, but didn't go see it because of so many online reviews saying in unison "It sucks!" Especially Bob, who is apparently not entertained (BOOM!).
Prometheus wasn't a sequel to Aliens.. it started as a 5th alien movie but ended up in the same universe as the Alien films but it wasn't directly tied to it.. they included just enough stuff to make the it seem connected to Alien... it's just a universe sharing film
Look, Gladiator was fun, but you're never going to convince me that it was "smart."
Also, I notice that Bob seems to be scrupulously avoiding any mention of the 1989 classic Black Rain. No, not the famously excellent Japanese book and film about the atomic bombing; the movie about an angry American cop shooting up yakuza that Ridley Scott inexplicably gave the same name. I defy Bob to find a way to justify that one as part of Scott's golden age.
Also, I notice that Bob seems to be scrupulously avoiding any mention of the 1989 classic Black Rain. No, not the famously excellent Japanese book and film about the atomic bombing; the movie about an angry American cop shooting up yakuza that Ridley Scott inexplicably gave the same name. I defy Bob to find a way to justify that one as part of Scott's golden age.
Prometheus is under-rated and gets far too much hate.
There were some dumb scenes yes (notably the first half of the film and the bit at the end where they run away from the ship) but there were also some brilliant scenes and great acting! The alien-abortion scene was intense! The story was interesting, basically our 'creators' hated their creation and wanted to wipe us out with the Xenomorphs. It serves well as a prequel to Alien despite not really having an 'Alien' in it until the final scene. I want to see a sequel, there is definitely potential with the story.
Exodus was eh, alright. A bit strange how it tried to play it off as 'realistic' with crocodiles making the Nile red and the sea receding instead of parting with two epic walls of water.
There were some dumb scenes yes (notably the first half of the film and the bit at the end where they run away from the ship) but there were also some brilliant scenes and great acting! The alien-abortion scene was intense! The story was interesting, basically our 'creators' hated their creation and wanted to wipe us out with the Xenomorphs. It serves well as a prequel to Alien despite not really having an 'Alien' in it until the final scene. I want to see a sequel, there is definitely potential with the story.
Exodus was eh, alright. A bit strange how it tried to play it off as 'realistic' with crocodiles making the Nile red and the sea receding instead of parting with two epic walls of water.
Honestly, I don't think anything happened to Ridley Scott. He was always great at the visual side of the directing equation, but with some very few exceptions he wasn't usually very good at the story telling side. Luckily he's so good at the first thing that most people didn't notice anything was lacking in his movies for a very, very, long time.
Nothing has happened to Ridley Scott. He has made some great movies and some mediocre movies. You cant expect him to be perfect 100% of the time, only an idiot would expect that.