Let's face it. The success of this film rests solely on H.R. Giger and Sigourney Weaver. But mostly H.R. Giger. Even if the film had been terrible, his creature would have lived on, like his SIL has, even in a shitty quadrilogy.
shareBoy do I disagree.
Given that, as the director, Scott's job would be to use Giger's designs to their fullest, coordinate the whole production, wok with Weaver to get her brilliant performance (and the other actors), and put the whole thing together, I'd say that he had a pretty substantive effect on the film.
didn't he feel he was doing a b movie with Alien? didn't he dismiss it for the longest time just like he did Blade Runner? Watching his filmography as a whole it is painfully clear this is not a talented man. It's a fact, there is just no way to deny it. Without Giger they have nothing.
shareI don't know about his feelings about the first Alien movie, actually. Do you have an interview source or something you're pulling from?
The only thing I know about Blade Runner is that he was frustrated with the studio's interference.
I agree with BrunoAntony below: everyone involved deserves a hearty slap on the back for wonderful work. The cast are a great ensemble, the music and sound are atmospheric and haunting, the design is iconic (and I give Giger his due: this film owes him a tremendous debt), but, yes, the direction pulls it all together.
Even if Scott hated the film, he still was clearly doing some great work here.
As to the man's track record, I haven't seen every film, but Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven (director's cut, anyway), and American Gangster are all great movies that I really have enjoyed. Thelma & Louise, the Duellists, and The Martian all have great reputations, too.
In fact, Scott thought the budget was B movie. He saw Star Wars and said to the studio 'We can't put crap out like this'. He then convinced the studio to double the budget.
So you have to credit Scott a lot for the movie we ended up with.
If the movie had been terrible, there would be no shitty quadrology.
Giger, Weaver, Scott, writer Dan O'Bannon and composer Jerry Goldsmith all deserve credit.
I didn't say the film was terrible, I said Giger deserves most of the credit. Scott didn't direct any of the sequels, and he made a soft reboot that turned out to be two of the worst films ever made. The more the franchise grows the more minuscule his role actually becomes.
shareYou:
Even if the film had been terrible, his creature would have lived on, like his SIL has, even in a shitty quadrilogy.share
H.R. Giger may have designed the creature, but you do need to make it legendary with a great film. The pace and overall atmosphere of Alien (1979) is what makes it epic.
All the pieces were just right !!
Scott deserves a huge amount of credit for the atmosphere and suspense and the look of the film, which is obviously a major reason why its so successful.
shareTroll Post. Or, you're delusional and no nothing about filmmaking. I'm guessing it's both.
shareI do know a lot about filmmaking, Iknow for instance that it is a true collaborative process. How to assign proper credit? looking at Alien and Blade Runner and then at the rest of Scott's filmography it is obvious that the elements that made those two great are not present in his other films. It's a fact. One of these things is not like the other, so how can anyone actually credit him solely for Alien? Which is what most people do.
shareWhat it might actually mean, more than anything, is that "Alien" and "Blade Runner" engaged him as a filmmaker a lot more than his other films. Who do you think directed these two? A Production Assistant?
shareWhy do people like you adore his crusty ass so effing much?? just looking at him makes me belch. What makes you think he somehow loves those films more than the rest? He's had carte blanche for everything he's done since then, he has been coasting on the fame and success of those films HARD to make his passion projects which are all crap. Simply put nothing he has done even remotely compares to those films, which had people working on them way more talented than him and who held the films up. Even his 'Blade Runner' director's cut is crap with too long shots, revisionist teal and orange and godawful special effects. This guy lost it ages ago but people are too afraid to say it.
shareToo afraid to say it?
No, you do have a point. In fact Bladerunner was not well received at all in 1982. In fact it was years before it was really appreciated. It is true that Scott has made some stinkers too. 1492 springs to mind. Mind, i do like Thelma and Louise. But, as I said in an earlier post, Scott did press the studio for a bigger budget after seeing Star Wars. As such, one can only imagine how poor the movie could have been at least visually. You do have to credit Scott with that.
Schizophrenics are always entertaining to listen to.
share"Ridley Scott deserves no credit for this."
I knew from the title who the author of the post would be , clear as day.
It lead me to believe it was an old thread i'd read before - deja vu!
But then it says posted a day ago .
weird.
head still ringing with deja vu
oh , And I'm sure mr Scott did *some* work A good lead actor and a scenery artist cant make a film on their own.
I'll bite.
Scott is a great visual director, he was able to make a great looking movie that had Gigers work which made it look all the better.
However, Scott has proved time and again that he is only as good as the script put in front of him.
Give him a great script and he'll turn out a great looking movie thats enjoyable, shove something like Prometheus under his nose, and he has no capacity to discern whether its good or not, but at least it'll look great on film.
And thats rather the problem. I get the impression that he assumes that everyone else is doing their job, and his job is to direct the camera for the best shots. He doesn't get too involved with the actors, he lets them work it out.
Lets not forget that Scotts input into Alien and Dan O'Bannons script was to have the xenomorph wear Ripleys head like a hat!!!
James Cameron might get some flak, but he is an all round director, writes scripts, knows what he wants from actors, and if he had been given Alien to direct instead of Scott, he would have turned out a decent movie as well.
Scott is a good director, a GREAT director should recognise when a script is shitty and needs revisions, and he can't or won't.
[deleted]
aww is your spine ok for bending backwards so much to defend and give credit to Scott?? lol great visual director?? Please.
shareYou clearly read only what you wanted from my post, well done you.
And yes Scott is a great visual director, all of his movies are shot with a real flair and look great, the problem for Scott is that isn't is only role, he's supposed to ensure EVERYTHING works in the movie not just the visuals.
and what flair is that? lots of teal and orange digital filters? pitch black darkness? in other words, like any other of his charlatan peers? what flair do you speak of? everyone says he's great visually and yet I nobody says why. Hitchcock is great visually, the greatest. What is Scott? Like I said, Alien is NOTHING without Giger. Nothing. So what is his great visuals? Thelma and Louise? Please.
shareIf its your contention that you think Scott can't lense worth a damn, we're done here.
The one area Scott doesn't lack is the visuals, you're clearly of the mind that nothing Scott does is good enough, fine, argue by yourself, I can accept he has faults, but you're a contrarian for the sake of it.
"Please" indeed.
typical response from a Scott fan. As I said his films look like everything else. He's even gone back and teal and oranged Alien to make it look like everything else. Not my fault your idol is a drunk charlatan.
shareYou literally haven't read a word i've said:
1). Scott is a great visual director
2). Scott will film ANY script put in front of him because he cannot discern a decent script from a crap one
3). Go back to point 1 until it sinks in.
I thought Prometheus and Alien: Covenant were absolute shit, they both looked great, both the scripts were poor..... because Scott cannot discern a good or bad script in the pre-production process.
Hows that for for a Scott "fan" you insufferable old fool that reads precisely what he wants in peoples posts.
Twat!
No he is not. Prove it. Why is he a great visual director?? Did he INVENT techniques like Alfred Hitchcock?? Seriously what the fuck has he done?
shareWhy would I bother proving anything to you? I can waste my time in far more interesting ways.
You heard it here, unless you invented a filming technique, you're a crap director!
Moronic.
I do not think so, that is a great movie, with a very good perfomance of Sigourney Weaver no doubt. A very good film!
share