Holy shit, this is actually really good

Why has everything Ridley Scott's done since been absolute trash?

You forgot Gladiator, mate. Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator are all 10/10s. Nothing else of his registers above a 7.

Blade Runner was a critically panned flop upon release and Scott has made 24 feature films, there's no way you have watched all of them.

I wanted to like Black Rain, wanted

Pleb detected

Blade Runner was almost going to be shit but Harrison Ford and the studio heads intervened. Ridley wanted it to be the big twist that Deckard was a replicant. Ford rightly said that was fucking stupid and the the studio agreed.

Basically Ridley Scott has terrible instincts and his early movies turned out good only because others prevailed in preventing his dumbass ideas from making the final cut.

>caring about what the critics think
I've ackhtually seen most of his films, with the exceptions of Body of Lies and 1492. I saw Blade Runner as a kid a long time ago and just rewatched it. Absolute kino, it's almost like a different person made it. It's really the editor's film.

Gladiator is trash.
Russel Crowe a shit.

He scored twice early on, and he knows how to make a movie look great, so he just went ahead and decided he can't be fucked to bother with quality control with any other aspect of his movies.

Yes, Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven are good, but that's just probably because they happened to have good writers.

Similarly: his original idea for the ending of Alien was to have Ripley get her head bitten off in the escape shuttle and have the alien then speak in her voice and make the final log entry that closes the movie. Ridley Scott is an idiot.

Okay, now try to comment on his directing for Alien.

>Black Rain,
I rather we'd gotten that ending instead of all those shitty sequels.

>gladiator
>10/10
uh

I can't argue that he's not a good director. He just needs to never ever have story input.

>I can't argue that he's not a good director.
That's exactly what people have been arguing, though. People specifically claim that Scott is a hack, that his movies suck because of him. He's not a writer, so people must be criticising his directing.

Scott's movies are only as good as his collaborators. Alien is good not because Scott, but because Dan O'Bannon had been working on the story for a while and he'd met Giger in a previous failed project so they knew how to make things work. Blade Runner had Syd Mead who was a great artist and a huge fan of the same sweet euroesque comics that had originally influenced PKD.

His directing is fine. It's the editing and screenplays that are the problem.

He's not a writer but he is a producer on many of his films which means he can give notes and demand changes to the script.

Gladiator, black hawk down and american gangster are good

He's about as good as george lucas is lucas had never been allowed near writing direction.

This these 3 get him a lifetime hack pass.

>Alien is good not because Scott
I can't believe we've reached this point.

Speaking of Gladiator 2000 was fucking balls out crazy when it came to films.

He didn't get worse, he's been getting better. You jut haven't been able to keep up with his expanding intellect and like Blade Runner for the pretty pictures.

...

Speaking of Blade Runner, I think the reason why hardly anyone can replicate the 'feel' of it is because people ignore its mythological and fantasy aspects.

Are you high? 2000 was one of the worst years for film ever.

> didn't say it was good.
> said it was balls out crazy.
> are you high?

Are you?

this movie would be meh if not for roy's existential speech before he dies
that shit hit me hard

>forgetting hollow man

The Duellist, you disgusting pleb.

Never. I fingerbanged a chick I had a crush on since freshman year because of this movie.

>i've seen things you people wouldn't believe
>you people
Was he a racist?

um, hannibal, exodus, robin hood, and GI Jane are fucking perfect

speciesist

The Duelist is the Barry Lyndon of Scott's filmography. No one unironically likes it.

Barry Lyndon is great

...

>gladiator
>trash
kill yourself senpai

Contemplating whether i should get tickets for the 'sequel'

Sup Forums memed me into watching Blade Runner and I fell for it

>those shitty "special effects" at the beggining
>slow pace

Literally the only reason you people have to like it is nostalgia, if you watch it today for the first time you won't like it

it is really god damn slow

I feel so smart when I agree with what RLM say

Who?

maybe Ninjago:the movie is more your type

...

Strong argument there mate

It was campy as all hell. I enjoyed it as a fan of buddy cop movies and Yakuza shit, but I wouldn't actually call it a good movie

are you so stupid that you would respond to a rehtorical question?

Kingdom of Heaven director's cut is good

The Martian is a movie I liked, but only because I went in with such low expectations. Also I like when sci-fi movies are optimistic for a change, since most of them end up bleak and depressing

>1492
I never realized that was scott. I guess it explains why vangelis did the score.

I didn't respond to any kind of question, what the fuck are you talking about

pleb spotted, you sound 100% normie who thinks he's a contrarian

>The Martian is a movie I liked
It would have been a mucg better movie if they stripped out most of Damon's dialogue.
I mean the set up that he never shuts the fuck up, but it's hard to be concerned about the character's situation when he's quipping at the audience every five minutes.
Tone down those comedic elements and the quirkiness just a little.
Otherwise its a great looking movie that moves along well enough.

I gave some arguments, unless you provide some arguments to prove I'm wrong, you are the pleb one

yeah, I don't like the movie either.
some nice dialogues but the movie is mainly just plodding, cheesy romance, and that weird 80's villain clownishness

You look like someone who judges things by their appearance

>that weird 80's villain clownishness
thats the best part. harrison ford is terrible in blade runner though

I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but lot of people say it's their favourite or the best ever

I just don't dig that

Mmm, it's a visual media, of course you judge by the appearance

You are shallow like a bowl of soup and your tongue is as sharp as a soup _spoon_

>Blade Runner
>""""""good"""""""

>I gave some arguments
"slow paced" is nowhere near an argument against a movie.
And shitty special effects, is almost NOT an argument against movies made 30 years ago

You are pretty stupid, underage, or both

Ok, what is wrong with these special effects?

Its good because if him but if people weren't there to stop his dumb ideas, it'd be a lot worse.

They look like they were made by a 10 yeard old boy

Cinema is a visual art, and if the movie looks shit (see most pre 90s films), the movie is shit

Here is clear that you are trolling.
If one says that the movie has a slow pace, is a pleb, but I understand.
But the effects, at least in the final cut, remastered? Kill yourself.

>if the movie looks shit (see most pre 90s films), the movie is shit
most pleb thing Ive ever read. I bet star wars is the oldest movie youve watched

To be fair, I haven't seen the remastered version

Nice ad hominem but you are wrong

This was a Ridley Scott movie? His filmography is so random I swear.

>dude, old movies that are black and white suck. not like hella tight transformers films

no, hollow man is paul verhoeven. that guy was just naming a movie from 2000

Nice ad hominem but you are wrong, most of my favourite films are old. I just don't like movies who base all their story on the visuals, see Transformers or Blade Runner. At least Transformers is fun and doesn't have any pretentions besides entertaining for 2 hours

define an "old" movie

When cinema started to be a serious art form, the 50s

you think movies werent in the 30's and 40's? why am I even talking to you

>I just don't like movies who base all their story on the visuals
How else is a movie going to convey anything at all? The dialogue is either superfluous or needs the pictures for context. If you could understand the movie from just the audio track it would be a radio play and that's an entirely different medium.

Beside a really small exception, real cinema starts in the 50s

You need to keep in mind it's a visual art. Make up evolved a lot, cameras a fucking lot, computers, editing, etc. Everything is better now

If you only care about acting, go watch live theatre
If you only care about dialogue, go read a novel

Cinema is a complete art where visuals take a main role

I hope you're not one of those people who think 3D and 60FPS are the future of film. That shit is just budget VR and that's its own thing.

You are dumb go watch " I was a fugitive from a chain gang" or three on a match or safety first.
Pree film code movies are fucking awesome. 1950s cutsie bullshit can go die

Not him but I don't know what framerate the industry is using now, but whenever the camera moves/pans too quickly everything gets blurry and it pisses me off to no end. (When watching in theaters, I don't watch movies at home)

I actually like this movie even though the story was terrible.

The standard is 24 frames per second.

that movie is comfy af

Then it must be the shit recording/projection. Either that, or I'm getting old. I could be imagining it bothers my eyes too

I thought I liked it because I watched it as a kid. But rewatched it recently and it's just awful. Tom Cruise acts like a complete retard in the film. It didn't age well

I'm still waiting to see the first argument against my thesis

Many movies were still being shot like stage plays as late as in the 60s.

Your theory dumbass. It's your theory. You are not submitting a document for review in the hope of obtaining a doctorate

There was one really jarring panning shot in the new IT adaptation, and I'm fairly certain it was because the shot was following a solid block of rock texture with nothing to focus on, and because the speed of the pan was too slow for the blur to counteract the choppiness but too fast for the framerate to keep up.

Which got us the terrible voice-overs version and the "happy ending" slapped on that was stripped from a prior film.

you are a faggot, thats my thesis

What about the Apple 1984 ad?

Thelma and Louise is better than Gladiator.

I fell asleep the first time i tried to watch it, second time only watched it entirely because my brother was with me and i was drinking.
Really boring movie, 5/10.

...

Nothing wrong with your eyes/equipment. 24fps is just too slow for action/panning scenes. It will always look like shit. 8K resolution is laughable when it degrades to VHS quality as soon as you have fast motion. We need to standardize on 120fps ASAP.

It's old-school feminism, not modern SJWism. There's nothing offensive about it.

Thelma and Louise? Could someone post the porn parody? There has to be one

so, old school feminism makes them drive off a cliff and kill themselves?

They survived, they're car broke through the ground and they turned into C.H.U.Ds