MovieChat Forums > Ridley Scott Discussion > Should be forbidden to make movies at th...

Should be forbidden to make movies at this point ...

posted 3 years ago by brux (14666)
21 replies | jump to latest

Prometheus
Convenient
Raised By Wolves

It just gets worse and worse. What is wrong with this guy? All movies or series with huge investment, huge talent, and great starting points, and ultimately they turn to crap and run into the ground? These are psychotic movies, and yet the people with the money, and we in the audience keep giving him rope. When is he going to hang himself so we don't have to suffer these spectacular fails?

Why does this guy have the money backing to make movies after so many spectacular failures ... is that what they want, failures? There is just something wrong with Ridley Scott.

"The Martian" was not too bad, but it was taken almost frame by frame from the book.

[–] exithereplease (3553) 3 years ago

I disagree, "The Martian" was terrible.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

I said the movie was "not too bad". I read the book and thought it was pretty good. What do you think was terrible about it? It certainly was not terrible in the way the other SF movies have been.

[–] exithereplease (3553) 3 years ago

I've never read the book.

I hated the comedy. I honestly felt the movie should have had a laugh track.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8857) 3 years ago

Haha ... I liked most of it, but the hyped up cliffhanger ending bothered me. Somehow it was not so obvious or overdone when you are reading it as when you are seeing the silliness on the screen over a few minutes.

[–] exithereplease (3553) 3 years ago

To each their own. The movie did very well and people overall seemed to enjoy it.

I actually think 1492: Conquest of Paradise (his most famous flop) was a better movie than the Martian. I'm sure I'm the only one with that opinion.

[–] pjl69 (2496) 3 years ago

"I actually think 1492: Conquest of Paradise (his most famous flop) was a better movie than the Martian. I'm sure I'm the only one with that opinion."

Why would you be? I sort of agree, but Ridley cut his movie too short as usual, it should have been 4hrs with an intermission. I think 1492 was his last good movie in his wasted 90's, before his comeback with the Gladiator.

[–] Scape (506) 3 years ago

Absolutely same! The comedy was awful... Couldn’t stand the movie because of it. “Leave Him There”

[–] Interlepos (1787) 3 years ago

You forgot All the Money in the World, which was not bad.

Don't forget that Ridley Scott was considered down and out by the late 90's. A real has-been. Then he came rolling back with Gladiator.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8857) 3 years ago

Mostly I am referring to his science fiction movies. The last one with Russell Crowe going apeshit with road rage was really horrible.

[–] Interlepos (1787) 3 years ago

You can't blame Ridley for a movie he didn't direct. Unhingned was directed by Derrick Borte.

[–] brux (14666) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pjl69 (2496) 3 years ago

You don't have to watch his movies if you don't like'em. I enjoyed both Prometheus and Covenant. They were better and had more substance than the average superhero CGI-crap produced these days.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8857) 3 years ago

That's a pretty low bar, and one I am not sure I'd agree with. His science fiction movies seem to be driven by special effects and his characters behaving like idiots. The Raised By Wolves series is so illogical it seduces people with special effects and just plain weirdness.

[–] pjl69 (2496) 3 years ago

Well, I have not seen Raised by Wolves because I don't subscribe to streaming services (wasn't he more of a producer on that one, and directed only couple of episodes?). The critic for Alien prequels I see, seems to be mostly by butt-hurt Alien/scifi fans who are angry because the prequels didn't fit the storyline. I treat them as separate movies and as such they're quite good.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8857) 3 years ago

Curious, what age group thinks it's cool to say butt-hurt? Doesn't really make your point, but it does say a lot about you.

[–] maximmm (3112) 3 years ago

They are all money laundering operations - costing a fraction of the advertised cost.
He probably has connections that allow cheap movies look good, which means the authorities won't dig around too much.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8857) 3 years ago

Could be.

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3599) 3 years ago

Thelma & Louise was his last good film

[–] SickSpazmoid (755) 3 years ago

Could be dementia. Too bad that his dementia fucked up Raised By Wolves. I'm 100% sure that the crap in last few episodes came form him. His signature is all over it. Ruined a good sci-fi story.

[–] Jones70 (6195) 3 years ago

His next two sound pretty promising.

[–] BourbonKing (5677) 3 years ago

Most of Ridley's movies have a formulaic bearing that is rather consistent.

"Alien" and "Bladerunner" are to me his only cinematically great movies where he pushes the envelope in terms of different story structure and visual dynamics. He also doesn't draw up stereotypical antagonists in both movies as he has done in practically all of his others.

His Alien sequels are horrid mess, and what makes them painfully asinine is he somehow chose to inject every Alien-knock off trope from lesser movies that were inspired by his original Alien. Everything from sexed-up heroins to moronic male characters. He continues to push the ambiguity of David/HAL-9000 in the storyline as well and it should have ended when the Engineer (another horrid misstep of a storyline) ripped his head off.