It seems the elder statesmen of film are feeling pretty bummed about the medium. It was only last month when the great Martin Scorsese grimly declared that “cinema is gone,” and now another veteran helmer is also sounding the alarm that the art form has seen better days.
“Cinema mainly is pretty bad” director Ridley Scott told Digital Spy, adding that he was “concerned” for the future of film. The filmmaker has certainly managed to keep going in the business, not just due to his reputation, but also by jumping between blockbusters (“The Martian“) and franchises (“Alien: Covenant“), while managing to get stuff like “The Counselor” made. However, Scott will never stoop to director a Marvel or DC movie.
“Superhero movies are not my kind of thing – that’s why I’ve never really done one,” he said. “[I’ve been asked] several times, but I can’t believe in the thin, gossamer tight-rope of the non-reality of the situation of the superhero.”
Instead, he says that something like “Blade Runner” is like a comic strip, and that “you could almost put Batman or Superman in that world, that atmosphere, except I’d have a f**king good story, as opposed to no story!” Ooh, sick burn.
“Alien: Covenant” opens on May 19, 2017.
Yeah,Prometheus sucked, as did Exodus: Gods and Kings, and your version of Robin Hood. Not to mention that you are still making Alien sequels instead of doing something original. Get off your high horse, man.
They’re still all more creative, original, substantial than any comic book movie drivel.
Really? Did you see Exodus: Gods and Kings, or are you just fanboying all over a favorite director?
Not fanboying anymore than you are fanboying over the likes of Stan Lee.
I am just a fan of original ideas and content – even, to a small extent, sequels to original content. Would rather see Martian, The Beautiful Mind, Exodus, Prometheus over Avengers.
“I am just a fan of original ideas and content”
Ridley Scott just directed and produced the 5th or 6th Alien movie, and he is producing a sequel to Blade Runner, a movie that came out in 1982.
Yes, he has made some good movies, but that doesn’t give him the right to shit all over modern cinema and imply that he could better. I mean, he refuses to do a superhero movie, yet he claims he could make a better one. Sounds like a bit of a jerk to me.
I think where he’s coming from is that studios don’t finance and market the movies they used to back in the 90s and 80s. It’s so much harder to finance an “Alien”, or Gladiator movie now than it was back then. Any movie releasing the same week as a Captain America or Iron Man,Star Wars, etc might as well be a blank screen for the audience and money it generates. That’s an exaggeration but am sure you get my point.
To your point about him being a “jerk”, that’s a pretty baseless statement given what he’s trying to convey. Martin Scorcese was much harsher about the same subject last week than RS was, and I am sure you won’t accuse him of anything.
They don’t finance/market movies the same way because factors have changed the situation. To make a film, you have to get investors/distributors (who aren’t interested in wasted money on failures). If you get lucky, maybe you make Beasts of No Nation but the likelihood of a huge success is slim, so it gets kicked down to the mini-majors and small theaters. However, director Cary Fukanaga put it on Netflix, expanding its audience.
But why does Netflix expand an audience that the movie theater can’t? Because Netflix services tons of people and can advertise on their front page. So now you have two advantages streaming/TV have that smaller cinema doesn’t: : 1) People know about the film. 2) People don’t have to drive to a small theater out in the boondocks or into a town 1 hour and 15 minutes away to see it. That’s why TV can take risks, and do projects that capture the spirit of audiences.
Can cinema do that given the various changes in social, economic, political & technological factors? Maybe it can but its easier to shift the business model to tentpoles. The revenue is larger and quicker to get. However, that doesn’t mean every tentpole is bad and should be demonized, because there’s good stuff in there too. The problem with Nolan, Tarantino, Scorsese & Scott is they haven’t articulated the true issue.. Instead, they rail against “superheros” or “digital film,” which is not the problem. It’s factors that they can’t change. Its more likely a younger generation will respond to them because those guys are stuck in their own memories of glorified time that isn’t coming back.
“that doesn’t give him the right to shit all over modern cinema”
Not modern cinema as a whole, but superhero movies and capeshit in general.
And yet the capeshit is better than most of his shit nowadays. And modern cinema like cinema of yesteryear is made up of more non-superhero films than superhero films,. Scott needs to place the blame where it really is: American culture and the corporate mentality. That changed the movie and music business. Not Bryan Singer’s X-Men. There was always that kind of stuff, and its far more sophisticated than it once was, and certainly more sophisticated than what the people in Prometheus were doing.
And by the way, I’m not fanboying over Stan Lee. The Marvel movies are okay to me, but I don’t get too excited over them. I think I payed to see two of them in theaters, out of however many they made. And I lost all faith in the DC movies.
You seem to act like 100% of cinema are superhero films and that there are no original films released in a year. Did you see Manchester by the Sea, Moonlight, Nocturnal Animals, La La Land, Lion, Jackie or Arrival?
Comic book films make the minority of films in a year. Sequels, reboots and remakes do to. They’re the most successful because people choose to see them, and not the other films I mentioned. Considering the cultural changes in the West and the advent of piracy, studios go where the revenue is. Its just like the music business. That’s why you’re more likely to hear music by corporate committee than original, thought-provoking works in the mainstream.
Well let’s see, there have been a handful of big budget science fiction films in the last decade. What would I rather watch? Oh “Passengers” was quite amazing right? LOL No, you go with Scott’s “The Martian” and, keep in mind, his idea behind “Prometheus”, while flawed, was a thousand times more inventive than most crap. I don’t see a lot of people coming up with an alien species that is responsible for the birth of humanity and tying that in to the evolution of creation and how the original Xenomorph was created. I like comic book movies. I feel they are entertaining, but to insult the guy who has more classic and career-defining sci-fi films than you can count on one had (That is a lot), is pretty sad on your part.
Okay, let’s get this out of the way: Superhero movies are a cash grab. Marvel knows that they have an entire cast of colorful characters who are already beloved from the comic books, so all they have to do is make a decent movie with likable characters and they will make hundreds of millions of dollars.
Heck, even the comics themselves often had uninspired story-lines and have been made just for money from their start. Rarely do you find a comic writer is who passionate about his/her craft as a lot of novelists are.
But I think it’s wrong here for Ridley Scott to crap all over the genre, refuse to do any of the superhero movies, and then imply that he could do a better job. I was pointing out that he had put out some pretty garbage movies too, so he’s not as amazing as he thinks he is.
Was he arrogant in say this? Yes. Absolutely. But a couple things. One, using the word “refuse” makes it sound like he’s defiant. He just didn’t want to do any of the films he was offered in the genre. Secondly, he probably could do a better job. Anyone with his years of experience probably could. He’s not exactly unfamiliar with special effects-driven films. And that leads to my third point, yeah he’s had bad films…in 40 years of ground-breaking ones. So he is pretty amazing. LOL This isn’t a maybe. He is. I’m not even going to begin to list the number of films he has done in the last 40-50 years. Any good filmmaker will have bad films over a long period of time, but this is the guy who made “Blade Runner”, “Alien”, “The Martian”, “Gladiator”, and so on. And when you’ve seen it all and you see crap like “Batman v. Superman”…fuck I’d say something too. Because it’s fucked up when the big box office winners are semi-intelligent costume parties and people like him are still trying to do something different in the industry and no one pays note. I can’t think of one Scott film that wasn’t innovative or unique minus “Robin Hood” but that was clearly studio interference. He originally wanted to do a film where Robin Hood pretends to be the Sheriff of Nottingham, but studios wanted him to try and do with that genre the way he revitalized the sword and sandal genre with “Gladiator” so he was forced to do a more straight-forward story. It’s not wrong if he’s right and he’s just pointing it out. Hell, you just described his point in detail. 🙂
All films are cash grab. Studios don’t make movies to lose money. Its a purely a question of balance of art & money. Christopher Nolan, Bryan Singer & many Marvel directors have personal artistic ideas that they realized with their projects, which also had great monetary value.
Then there are tentpole films by “for-hire” directors with no true artistic individuality who direct films with very little in common such as McG (Terminator Salvation) or Alan Taylor (Thor 2, Terminator Genysis). There’s also directors who lack control over studio meddling such as Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four. These guys want to do something but are overruled in a way studios can’t do with Scott, Scorsese, Fincher or Nolan. However, its all about the balance.
Scott’s issue is he’s confusing his own narrow-minded view of one genre with the business, technological and cultural changes that are truly to blame for the alterations of the movie-making business. I’m quite sure directors of the 1950s made similar criticisms of Scott, Spielberg & George Lucas’ tentpole ventures in 70s/80s as being the nadir of cinema. Its just older people raging against the dying of their light. They can’t do anything to stop what’s coming, so they complain instead of using their talents to improve what they see is lacking.
There’s a lot of good superhero stories out there. Batman Begins had a great plot. Thor had a simple but sweet plot. Scott should actually make one if he feels the genre is missing something he values.
I dont think we need anymore superhero stories. we had like 20 of them last year.
Compared to the hundreds if not thousands that come out every year, 20 is a very small number.
all but a fraction of those are irrelevant and should not even be considered. the top 150 at the box office at the end of the year are about 95% of what the average movie goer even CONSIDERS going to see. there were 6 in 2016. just off the top of my head
6 out of 150 movies is 4 percent and that was a uptick from the previous years. If you’re going to tell me with a straight face that the other movies are “irrelevant and should not even be considered” just because of what the average movie goer even considers seeing, please do not tell me that 4 percent is overwhelming.
2 MCU movies, 2 DCEU movies and 2 Fox movies. 6 movies compared to the thousands that came out and were completely unrelated to them.
You only see what you want to see.
Not just that. Over 17 years, the X-Men universe has given us about 20 hours of material, seen only 2 hours at a time with breaks of 2 years between releases. TV’s Breaking Bad gave us 62 hours of material, presented weekly during TV seasons in 5 years.
If there are too many superhero films, then there are too many Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones episodes because it takes 2 to 3 times as long to sift through and is presented in a much shorter period of time.
ballsy statement comin from a guy who hasn’t made a good film in like 20 years
What is The Martian?
The Martian was bad. 2 hours of Matt Damon explaining his scientific problems and trying out solutions without giving the audience the slightest reason why they should give damn if he lives or dies.
I really loved The Martian. And yes, I also loved Prometheus. There I said it. Full of logical holes for sure, but setting something interesting.
With that being said, Scott should just have STFU on this one. Just another old-timer who can’t accept the fact that it’s not the cinema that’s dying. Just HIS cinema.
I was okay with Prometheus. Beautiful cinematography by Dariusz Wolski, but it could’ve been much better. The Martian was just awful, and no one who liked it can articulate what makes it so great. I promise you that if you fell asleep for 35 minutes, you wouldn’t have missed any important content because you still would be able to follow it despite missing chunks of footage. Why? Because the footage isn’t essential to understand the film begging the question, why is it in there? That’s why I find it awful, boring and something that never answered why anyone should care if he lived or died.
As your last few sentences, I agree 100% I’m sure the 40s/50s filmmakers said the same things about him, Spielberg & Lucas (“All these movies today are about aliens, spaceships and sharks. Where’s the drama?”).
I gave a damn and so did a lot of people, much better than countless CGI fights of cartoon characters in grey environments with TV-tier cinematography.
Why? What reason did you have? What difference does his survival make? In Gravity, Dr. Ryan Stone’s survival depended upon overcoming emotional turmoil in herself from her time on Earth. Her overcoming that had an understandable human element that made her survival meaningful. In The Revenant, Hugh Glass’ survival was tied to a desire for revenge rooted in sorrow over the murder of his son. Again, understandable human element.
What was Mark Watney’s human struggle? Nothing. His desire to survive is just his desire to survive, but how does that relate to me? I don’t care about it anymore than if a real life astronaut got stuck in space and died. What does it inform me? What values does it bring me. How do I relate to it.
Lastly, to your stupid quip about superhero films. Watch Captain America Civil War. But walk out for 20 minutes two times, and come back to it. I guarantee you will be missing details that edify your understanding of it. Do the same for The Martian. You miss absolutely nothing, because its merely Matt Damon reading off his problems like an instruction manual. 80% of the material is not important. Only the first 10 and last 20 minutes. But then again, the book The Martian was just as boring and bad. Now save me your moronic surface reading of things and give me an in-depth discussion about things or is your surface level understanding of complex superhero films the quagmire of your brain capacity?
The spectator cared about Mark Watney’s ordeal the same way they did for Aron Ralston in 127 Days: Survival instinct. The empathy in both cases is automatic for most human beings can actually use their imagination and put themselves in someone else’s shoes, no matter how fictional. And if you mix the latter with a great cast, good acting, outstanding cinematography and an excellent direction -by Mr. Scott- you end up having one of the best movies of 2015. That’s quite an achievement.
Your 20 minute test is simply absurd. Both movies work differently with unsimilar paces; The Martian needs time to build an atmosphere and get people to identify with the protagonist, while with the other it isn’t even necessary if you have enough people in spandex suits and lots of fake explosions, but leaving space in the “story” for more and more and MORE sequels. Maybe that’s the main reason you didn’t like The Martian. Not my case, in fact the worse movie I watched this year was Deadpool followed really close by Suicide Squad, I respect the differences in taste between people but (man)children movies are just atrocious.
Scott was right.
Yes, the spectator cared about Mark Watney’s ordeal the same way they did for Aron Ralston in 127 Days: Survival instinct. The empathy in both cases is automatic for most human beings can actually use their imagination and put themselves in someone else’s shoes, no matter how fictional. And if you mix the latter with a great cast, good acting, outstanding cinematography and an excellent direction -by Mr. Scott- you end up having one of the best movies of 2015. That’s quite an achievement.
About your 20 minute test, it is simply absurd. Both movies work differently with unsimilar paces; The Martian needs time to build an atmosphere and get people to identify with the protagonist, while with the other it isn’t even necessary if you have enough people in spandex suits and lots of fake explosions, but leaving space in the “story” for more and more and MORE sequels. Maybe that’s the main reason you didn’t like The Martian. Not my case, in fact the worse movie I watched last year was Deadpool followed very close by Suicide Squad. I respect the differences in taste between people but (man)children’s movies are just unimaginative and visually atrocious.
Ridley Scott was right.
In a cinematic context, empathy is not automatic. If it is for you, then you care about every character you see on a screen based on the fact that they are there. Empathy is created through dramatization. 127 Hours uses a video diary and narrative excursions to explore Ralston’s reasons for wanting to survive beyond the basic act of doing so, which related to his personal relationships and experiences. The same is for Gravity, Interstellar, Into the Wild and The Revenant, which is why those conflicts inspired empathy for the main characters.
The Martian spends no time exploring Watney’s motivations for survival beyond the basic act. His video diary simply documents scientific problems. The Martian doesn’t answer why Watney truly wishes to survive, and thus doesn’t answer why Watney’s survival is important. With Watney’s motivation to survive lacking a why, Watney becomes a simple character with one basic goal advanced by procedure, none of which provide make his goals any more compelling or important. Thus, you can skip his procedural failures and miss absolutely nothing as the only goal is to survive. Only the first & last 10 minutes are important. If his desire to survive was dependent upon inner conflicts, missing them would ruin the viewer of important details that are crucial to the character’s attempts.
I entertain no criticism of sequels. There are 20 hours of X-Men released in 17 years. There are 62 hours of Breaking Bad episodes released in 5 years. One can’t complain about one, and not the other. Also, movies about sharks, aliens and robots are similarly viewed as man-childish. Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron and Scott made those exact films. So Scott was wrong and simply the kind of snob people who grew up in the 1940s and 1950s were to directors like him in the 1980s. But this is not really something that needs to be argued considering superhero films are here to stay and there’s nothing anyone can do about it but cry like true man-children whose simplistic thought-processes cannot process the layers of social commentary many of these films explore similar to how aliens and robots were used for commentary in the 1970s/1980s.
no one needs Ridley Scott to tell them how bad cinema has become. we watch the movies we’ve seen it with our own eyes.
Cinema, like, say….Prometheus?
My response exactly.
superhero fans are salty.
Superhero films suffuse me with disgust and hatred. My first response to the headline was: “I agree wholeheartedly.” My second response (whilst considering “Prometheus” and others) was: “And what exactly are you doing to help the situation?”
What is Ridley Scott doing to help Cinema? The Martian – arguably the best movie of 2015 says HELLLLLLOOOOOO! Everyone wants to point to Prometheus – but even the best directors aren’t immune to making a bad one once in a while. And even Prometheus wasn’t that bad. I’m withholding judgement until i see how the rest of the story pans out.
The Martian wasn’t great. The basic feature of any survival film is to tie the character’s efforts to survive with an underlying emotional struggle that the audience can relate to. The Martian doesn’t do that. It simply shows Matt Damon explaining his problems and trying to fix them, without the slightest clue of why anyone should care. You could literally fall asleep for 30 minutes of that film and miss absolutely nothing important. But that’s Scott’s quagmire. He’s a great technical director but a bad storyteller and inconsistent in quality (like Brian de Palma). And even if The Martian was great, The Counselor, Exodus & Robin Hood were not. American Gangster, Body of Lies, Prometheus & Hannibal were average at best.
spot on… arguably his best film was thanks to Phillip K Dick. Aliens was not original by any stretch (except for casting Sigourney Weaver)… it just had great special effects.
Blade Runner had excellent underlying themes. Alien wasn’t an “original” story but it used symbolism to an effect that very few can. Alien enshrines the male fears of rape and pregnancy, presenting it in a rather terrifying form that unlike most stuff from pre-1980 is still scary if you saw it for the first time in 2017.
If “The Martian” is arguably the best movie of 2015, well, that’s the problem with popular cinema right there. Agree to disagree? I was obsessed with “Alien” in 1979, I have deep love for “Blade Runner,” I feel that “Legend” is underrated, and I actually prefer “Hannibal” to “The Silence of the Lambs” (go figure), but, if we’re really being honest here, RS is nowhere near the top ranks of film directors. He’s a glorified advert helmer like his brother Tony. The aforementioned films were from a long time ago, too, although one of his best films is 2003’s “Matchstick Men,” largely because it had such an un-Ridley Scott vibe (and excellent performances, unlike the complete lack of nuance that a star like Matt Damon exhibits). So, three films I would keep from a forty-year career: “Alien,” “Blade Runner” and “Matchstick Men.” The rest of his oeuvre is pretty uninspiring, and he seems to me to be flailing around insecurely in the current century, if certainly with a tremendous amount of energy for a septuagenarian (and he’ll be an octogenarian in November). Bully for him, but he’s still not the man to mitigate the problem of “pretty bad cinema.”
Like Interstellar it sounded so utterly ridiculous a premise as to not be worth watching. They all float the absurd notion, that we can survive in space and that there is a potential planet B we can colonize… a dangerous idea to promote when the planet we are living on is in serious jeopardy because of our inaction. All these films seem to be saying,” Calm down, there’s nothing to worry about…” when of course the sky really is falling and there is no way off. WE need films about what we are going to do to avoid such a scenario, not films that describe it as inevitable.
Because superhero films are not the nadir of cinema. Many of them are better than what Scott has done in the past 25 years. The nadir of the industry is the corporate mentality that produces stuff like John Carter and relegates its better fare to smaller, independent mini-major circuit. Its also the audiences who don’t show up to support the better films released every year. Furthermore, people like Scott discount the terrible crap that came out in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s that make John Carter look like The Ten Commandments.
Right? I can’t even watch a film before the 60’s… they bare no resemblance to reality.
The non-genre films do such as 12 Angry Men. However, the sci-fi and action stuff is so dated it has no relevance in modern society.
He’s right, of course. It’s the Revolt of the Masses. When the masses started really dictating what was being made and what they wanted to see it spelled the end of cinema as an art form. It’s simply a big entertainment corporate business now aimed to please the masses. Every now and then something interesting slips out, but not very often. Most American movies today that are widely praised are just junk catering to the masses with maudlin, sentimental narratives of such obvious immaturity it’s embarrassing. To see an interesting movie we have to be thankful for the French as Elle was certainly worth a viewing. It’s interesting that the director wanted to make it here, but more than several of the top actresses here refused his offers. I have to think they just lacked the courage to do the character and movie because of their concerns of the American audience. Too bad. However, it worked out for the better as none of the American actresses have the chops, the courage or the talent that Isabelle Huppert has displayed through-out her wonderful career. Oh well…it is what it is and at least the masses are happy as they flock to see these big comic book super hero movies one after the other.
Given how prolific Scott is, I can’t imagine he has much free time to watch movies, so he’s not the best judge of the quality of modern cinema. Ask any critic who sees 200+ new releases a year and they’ll you cinema is in pretty great shape right now.
studios keep making super hero movies.. audiences keep giving them $100m at the box office… it’s not going to stop. what you think about the movies are irreverent. every time you pay to see garbage… you fund the studios to make more garbage.
Directors make movies for the audience and if the audience wants superhero movies,then why not direct one? It’s not just the studios asking him to do a superhero movie,it’s the fans. We know he is a great director which is why we want him to do one. He has something to offer to the table and he’s shitting all over it by not giving us the time of day and bashing us for it.
I would think twice about Scott doing a superhero film. He’s hit and miss. I’d look for someone younger and with a more consistent output like Rian Johnson or Denis Villenevue.
“because audiences keep giving them $100m at the box office”
And why do they do so ? Surely without any reason at all, right ?
Comicbooks have decades of stories ripe for cinema and is just a fraction of what we have seen so far.I’d say the most annoying thing about superhero movies is that they try to splice as much comicbook lore into one movie. BvS is a prime example,they crammed the Dark Knight Returns and Death of Superman storylines into one mess of a plot instead of focusing on each individual storyline which in and of itself deserves its own focus. Marvel movies have an end game and in doing so is allowed to focus on one main plot at a time without trying to wear moviegoers out. Comicbooks have a plethora of character storylines with enough main and sub-plots to make dozens of movies for decades to come. Complaining about superhero movies is just as ignorant as complaining there are too many books being made into movies. Ridley Scott makes amazing movies and is one of my favorite directors but seriouly needs to get over himself on this one.
Good superhero movies are fine once in a while. But how many f***ing Xmen, Avenger, and Batman movies do we need? They’re on an assembly line now. I think that is what Scott’s gripe is. Shoveling out one after another.
Since when do comicbook fans NOT want too many comicbook movies?
We need more X-men and Batman movies,the problem is they need to stop cramming so many characters into one movie so the plot suffers. The problem with the X-men movies is that each movie gradually lost it’s focus on the X-men themselves and became focused on just three characters,Xavier ,Magneto and Mystique by putting the X-men on the back-burner.
Batman’s problem has been the directors themselves. Nolan started out doing a great job revitalizing Batman in cinema but failed miserably with DKR because he didn’t want to continue making them. He admitted himself that he made DKR just to get out of being contracted to more films,which explains how terribly pieced together it was.The problem with Snyder’s Batman was his Batman(and with Superman) had no plausible character development. It was like “Ok it’s Batman,that’s all we need.Let’s just have him do cool shit,who cares if Batman would or wouldn’t do that?” I’d like to see a Batman movie where he doesn’t kill,actually does real detective shit and delve more into his psychology as to why he is and stays Batman,not just because his parent’s died.
i actually really liked DKR compared to other super hero flicks. i honestly am aloof to the reasons people hated it. don’t agree at all. i thought it had a story as opposed to the 2 hour mindless action, CGI spammed, Michael Bay wink-at-the-camera spewfest most of superhero movies end up being.
I can give you all kinds of reasons why DKR sucked. The whole “Just pop it back in,that’ll heal a broken back” & “Just wear knee braces and that’ll help your cartilage-less knees”, Batman telling the Cat burglar(that alone pissed alot of ppl,not calling her Catwoman or her lack of a Catwoman costume) Bane’s henchmen will kill them without hesitation yet they just stand there while they talk, or how about the horrible fight choreography. Or the nonsensical plot. Or Batman still in the Bat-wing with 5 seconds left on a nuke yet somehow can jump out of it,swim or Batboat(not in the movie ofcourse) from a 2 mile nuclear blast radius and survive. Or how he made it from across the world with no money let alone out of the continent where he was prisoner.
These and many,many more plot-holes that made DKR the unbearable crapfest it is understandingly hated by anyone. I am a huge Batman fan and I refuse to watch it ever again. I’d even put it in the ranks of Batman and Robin it was so bad…and The Dark Knight was heading in the right direction…
TDKR was one of the most underwhelming super hero movies i’ve seen. Clearly Nolan wanted out after Dark Knight. Well, he should have.
The only positive notes were Blake, Zimmer’s score and Bane. Batman was blander than ever and boy, the plot… what the hell was that ? Let’s just say it set the tone for what kind of mess we would have later for MoS and BvS : movies that are unable to piece things together for +2 hours.
I really hope Nolan stays out of the super hero thing for a long time.
If you look at the critical reception and box office gross of the Marvel franchise, there’s clear mandate to make more. They’re story arcs with character development, something cinema is criticized for lacking while TV has surpassed it in the same regard. I also never understood this criticism of “too many sequels.” You get 17 Marvel movies in 10 years, 10 X-Men-related films in 17 years and 6 Batman movies in 12 years, and that’s too much!!! If these same films were TV series with 100 episodes like Breaking Bad, everything would be fine. It would take you more time to watch every episode of Game of Thrones than the entire X-Men series. So if there are too many X-Men films, there are too many Game of Thrones episodes.
This coming from Ridley Scott is funny. Scott has always been hit or miss, with a far better handle of the technical aspects of directing than a consistent grasp of storytelling. Even Gladiator, one of his better directorial efforts, has a generic “swords and sandals” story. And virtually every superhero film ever made makes more sense than Prometheus.
Pshaw. Alien is a masterpiece. No super hero movie has matched its heights. Sorry.
I loved Alien (which doesn’t have a complex story by-the-way). Doesn’t change the fact that Scott is a hit-and-miss filmmaker with a poor grasp of story. The best story in a Scott film is Thelma & Louise, the only Scott film to win a Oscar for screenplay. So if you’re sorry, be sorry for thinking pointing out one film out of a massive filmography of many duds disproves my point. By your poor logic, the achievements of Richard Kelly’s Donnie Darko invalidate the substantial failures of the horrible Southland Tales and The Box.
Now name me a poor filmmaker so I can name one of the few good films he did as a defense. Do they teach logic or debating in school anymore?
I’ve watched it very recently (the first time I did, I was way too young and only saw half of it). A masterpiece indeed. But to say it’s still unmatched by any super hero movie… hmm, based on what ? What is exactly unmatched ? Because while I firmly restrict myself to judge a movie as a whole, it is composed of so many details that are really dependents on one’s expectations. And you simply don’t get to tell others what their expectations are.
I quantified “match” by a number of things: critical and audience ratings (as tracked by multiple services: RT, Metacritic, IMDb, Google). I also compared box office gross, award wins and thematic range. In doing so, The Dark Knight matches Alien if not surpassing it in some circles.
Agree 100%.
But the problem with people like Killa.fish : they always want to challenge movies on specific aspects that should not be compared. Avengers for example, has various qualities you won’t find in Alien. Winter Soldier has qualities you won’t find in Black Hawk Down. But, the real question I would ask myself -if I tried to compare these- is : did these movies actually aim to achieve the same things ? And it’s an obvious “no”.
I wouldn’t be able to compare Winter Soldier with Black Hawk Down in many different respects, but if one asked me which film is better, I would argue Winter Soldier. The reason would be is that Winter Soldier achieves what it aims to, and speaks to socially-relevant ideas, concepts and questions despite its fantasy, superhero trappings.
It ultimately goes beyond the basic expectation of its genre much like Alien did in 1979, eschewing typical horror, extraterrestrial and sci-fi tropes for a blend of entertainment, thrills, psychoanalysis and overt/coded social commentary (on corporate greed and sexuality) that pushes the genre forward. By comparison, Black Hawk Down goes by the numbers. It achieves is basic premise with excellent technical aspects. Its good overall but doesn’t speak as complexly or as memorably as it might have liked to.
My issue is that people like Ridley Scott dismiss the complexity of modern superhero films. The Iron Man-Captain America arc in Marvel is a running commentary on internationalism, diplomacy, foreign policy and war. Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy was about corruption, vigilantism and populism. The X-Men series lends itself to issues of prejudice. Its not just guys in costumes. Its only that to snobs who brush it off.
The Dark Knight matches Alien’s heights. It has a higher rating on IMDb, & Google. It has the same rating on Amazon, RT’s user rating & Metacritic’s user rating and a 1 point difference on Metacritic’s critic rating as well as a 3 percentage difference on RT’s critic rating.
TDK’s gross is substantially higher, even when factoring in inflation and won 2 Oscars from 8 nominations (including an acting nomination). And lastly, its themes have more substance than Alien, which at best speaks to corporate greed whereas the TDK focuses on political corruption, vigilantism, existential nihilism and personal issues in a frame relevant to modern society.
Try again, sir.
The point is Scott has delivered an ECLECTIC filmography to moviegoing audiences. From Gladiator to Alien to American Gangster to Blade Runner to Black Hawk Down. Yes, some of his films definitely miss the mark but he at least TRIES to do something different. Superhero films on the other hand don’t put much effort into making a different films. The main characters act exactly the same. The love interests act exactly the same. The villains act exactly the same. The main conflict in the plot is usually exactly the same. All they do is change the setting and the protagonist’s costume. I have to admire someone that at least tries something different than directors who are just there to repackage the same old generic story and characters.
First, I’d rather have Bryan Singer direct 10 good similar things than an eclectic mix of bad films. I’ve also never been on certain Scott bandwagons. The Martian was pure exposition of which very little mattered. Blade Runner had more style than communicated substance. Gladiator was like any other “swords & sandals” epic. American Gangster was vastly overrated. Black Hawk Down was decent, but not memorable as a war film and highly inaccurate. Scott’s best films were Alien and Thelma & Louise. And none of that can hide away G.I. Jane, Exodus or The Counselor.
Secondly, superhero films don’t make films. Filmmakers do. And if you’re trying to tell me that all superhero films are the same, then you haven’t seen any. But I’ll dismantle your point piece by piece:
1. Captain America, Iron Man, Spiderman, Batman, Superman, Deadpool and Wolverine don’t look the same, nor act the same either.
2. Gomorrah, Catwoman, Jane Foster, Lois Lane, Jean Grey, Mary Jane Watson & Gwen Stacy don’t look the same, nor act the same either.
3. The Joker, Bane, Two-Face, Obadiah Stane, Red Skull, Lex Luthor & Magneto are not the same.
4. The plots of Nolan’s Batman series, Deadpool, X-Men, X2, Captain America, Doctor Strange and Spiderman are not the same.
Thus your comments on that are more indicative of your film snobbery that couldn’t muster an in-depth commentary about any superhero film because you see nothing beyond the surface and only because you don’t want to.
Now, let’s look at Mr. Scott, shall we? In the past few years, Scott has been dedicated himself in the past 16 years in his capacity as a producer and director in part to re-hash his own works (Prometheus, Alien Covenant, The Neill Blomkamp Alien film, Blade Runner 2049) as well as re-hashing the works of others (Murder on the Orient Express, Robin Hood, Exodus, Hannibal, The A-Team, Tristan + Isolde). And the overwhelming majority of his output in that time is not better than your average superhero film nor has his work been as memorable or relevant. So if I were you, I’d save my admiration for someone who is consistent and competent in their output regardless of what it is. This reminds me of people who say they like a politician because they’re a decent person. Who cares? Are they effective at what they do? If not, be decent on the street corner. You get no points from me because you “tried” to do something different.
You used the exceptional superhero films that HAVE done something different to exemplify your points. Fair enough, but this doesn’t represent superhero films as a whole. Nolan’s Batman films revolutionized the genre because he took a realistic and gritty approach to comic book stories. Guardians of the Galaxy didn’t even feel like a superhero film to most people and is more similar to Star Wars or Star Trek than other superhero films. Deadpool was a deconstruction of the superhero and had a protagonist breaking the fourth wall. All of the aforementioned tried something different and were rightfully praised for their efforts. If you think that these represent the superhero genre as whole, however, we are going to have to agree to disagree. The majority of superhero films sell formulaic story telling and character and hardly ever take risks because it works. From a business standpoint this makes complete sense, but don’t be surprised if some people begin to get tired of it.
I think what is truly snobbish is calling someone a snob simply because someone disagrees with you, but then again I’m not surprise. This seems to be a common characteristic among fanboys. This is an article specifically about a director who is not a fan of the superhero genre…of course you’re going to find people in the comment section that agree with him. I am not shooting anyone down who enjoys these movies, telling people that like superhero films that my tastes are better, or insinuating that anyone who disagree with me must be a snob of some sort (seriously, this is a bit childish).
Lastly, I completely disagree with some of your assessments of Scott’s films. I think Blade Runner, The Martian, Gladiator, and American Gangster were all very well made films, but then again there isn’t really much of a point in arguing film tastes.
I also don’t fault any director making a continuation of an original story they created. Although I think Prometheus was an atrocious film he didn’t just rehash from the vastly superior Alien. He brought the story into a completely new direction. As for his works on adaptations, I think you’re missing the point. The summer is inundated with Robin Hood or Hannibal adaptations. The problem many have with superhero film isn’t that they are based off previously written works nor is this the problem Scott claims to have in the article.
And finally, I have much more respect for someone that tries something different, reaches for greatness, and occasionally fails than someone that “consistently” delivers films that are decent to good but never great and doesn’t dare to step outside of his/her comfort zone out of fear of messing up. If that were the case, movies would have never explored all the complex themes they have to this date, cinematography would have been at a standstill, acting would have never progress, etc. So if someone tries to get out of his comfort zone and makes a film that stands the test of times and forever changes cinema, yes, I will have more respect for them than for someone that simply made a “good” superhero movie.
Ah, I used exceptions? In saying that you admit that there are exceptions. In doing that, you place yourself in the position of arguing that everything must be judged by its worst not its best, right? By that logic, cinema was always bad. There was always more bad & mediocre stuff than great stuff. By this logic, we can also argue that cinema is better now than before because the worst stuff of today (Fantastic Four) is better than the worst stuff of yesterday (Plan 9 from Outer Space).
However, this logic doesn’t reflect reality. When we think of the 60s, 70s & 80s, we don’t think of Heaven’s Gate. We think of 2001, Network & Gandi. 32 superhero film since 2000 score over 65% in approval ratings. That’s how the genre is to be judged. EVERY year there are great films released. I actually go to the big AND small theaters to see them. That’s how cinema today is to be judged. Cinema is fine. It has its problems, but when has it not? But don’t tell me that cinema is bad because 4 out of 8 superhero films of 2016 got poor reception. Its a nonsensical argument.
When I mentioned Scott’s re-hashing of his own material and that of others, it was in response to your statement “I have to admire someone that at least tries something different than directors who are just there to repackage the same old generic story and characters.” That’s what YOU wrote, so its you whose missing your own point. If what you wrote wasn’t important to your overall point, why’d you bring it up. Don’t distract yourself with the non-sequitur, and certainly don’t think you’ll distract me either. As for your opinions on Scott’s films, if you can’t go more in depth to why I’m wrong, I could care less what your opinions are. Why is more important to me than a general statement of disagreement or agreement.
Lastly, how can you even argue that many superhero filmmakers haven’t done anything different, which you are certainly implying about directors of superhero films? Here’s a wake-up call for you:
1. Bryan Singer: Apt Pupil, The Usual Suspects, X-Men, Jack the Giant Slayer
2. Chris Nolan: Dunkirk, Inception, Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige
3. Joss Whedon: Avengers, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Much Ado About Nothing
4. James Mangold: Identity, Cop Land, Wolverine, Girl Interrupted, Walk the Line, 3:10 to Yuma
5. David Ayer: Training Day, Fury, Suicide Squad, End of Watch
6. Kenneth Branagh: Henry V, Cinderella, Thor, Murder on the Orient Express
7. James Gunn: Slither, Super, Guardians of the Galaxy
I can go on sir.
The real problem is people don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re grabbing onto a popular statement with no basis without really thinking about it. Its exactly like people who boo people who disagree with evolution or climate change. They boo not because they can muster an actual argument in defense of their belief in those things. They’re just repeating what they heard that has become popular consensus not by understanding but by parroting, confirmation bias and a simplistic brain process that never bothers to ask questions. As for you, I suggest you do more research before say anything because so much of what you said isn’t backed up the facts or the details. I also suggest you read into debating, so not to contradict yourself and fall into traps that allow the other person to run you into corners.
Ridley’s answer is fairly condescending considering Blade Runner was adapted for a comic book in 1982 and he is not all that consistent in quality for his films. For instance, his Prometheus relies too much on the old Idiot Ball narrative crutch for horror films of the characters doing all the necessary stupid things for the story instead of bothering to create a good plot where people act believably. If he is prepared to defend that narrative laziness, then he should respect the narrative logic of the superhero genre on its own terms.
Sounds like an old man griping about the world changing. Silent cinema hated sound. Black & white cinema hated color. Classic special effects artists hate CGI and on and on. It really all just comes in waves. 80’s was Sci-fi/horror, 90’s had action stars, the previous decade was all about adult humor and this decade is the one of the Comic Book Character. Ridley Scott doesn’t want to ride this wave so instead he claims cinema is gone. Cinema isn’t gone or going anywhere as long as people have a story to tell and tools to tell it with.
Scott hasn’t directed many good movies in the last 15 years except The Martian. Exodus…..the umpteenth Robin Hood remake…..an Alien prequel that wasn’t really tied into Alien except one final scene….now he’s dusting off Blade Runner for a sequel after many, many years. He hasn’t done much worthwhile in a long time.
Nothing gets the comments rolling in like a famous director disrespecting the superheroes.
Remember when David Cronenberg said the same thing a few years ago? The outrage.
LOL. “Noooooooooooooo!!!! My movies that are making billions of dollars at the box office despite being bland and terrible and being a part of one of the most formulaic genres of movies ever and that also are a symptom of the American empire collapsing are being criticized by a person who is 100 percent correct in his criticism of my movies which I should have stopped enjoying when I was a 10 year old because that is about what level they are on in terms of narrative complexity!!!”
“by a person who is 100 percent correct”
And who deems mister Scott as such ? And how ? Yeah, thought so.
Coming from David Cronenberg, the criticism would be funny too. Aside from A History of Violence and Eastern Promises, everything he’s done in the 20 years is junk. Especially Cosmopolis.
No, what’s funny is how upset and offended superhero fans get when veteran directors in their 70s who’ve never made kids’ films say they have no interest in spending several of their remaining years adapting material designed for 8-12 year olds (and in a studio production line system that effectively relegates them to the status of TV directors anyway).
“I think it’s still Batman running around in a stupid cape. I just don’t think it’s elevated. Christopher Nolan’s best movie is Memento, and that is an interesting movie. I don’t think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they’re 20 million times the expense. A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it’s comic book. It’s for kids. It’s adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying ‘Dark Knight Rises’ is, you know, supreme cinema art,’ I don’t think they know what the fuck they’re talking about.” – David “How Dare He” Cronenberg, 2012
I’m a cinema fan first off. Secondly, most superhero films are violent and not for 8 to 12 years olds. And most people in the theater to see these films are 15 to 35. So are comic book readers. In high school, I never saw a single comic book reader.
Thirdly, Cronenberg is a simple-minded idiot if he thought any of Nolan’s Batman films were a guy running around in a cape. Maybe in the 1990s. Not now. Replace Batman with a guy without a cape, and this criticism would be invalidated because people like you and Cronenberg are surface level thinkers. TDKR says more about what happened in 2016 than anything Cronenberg ever did, but you guys wouldn’t know that with your dismissive, 12-year-old understanding of details. And if you saw Cosmopolis and Maps to the Stars, it wasn’t art. It was trash.
Lastly, I bet people like you, Scott and Cronenberg were around in the 1970s & 1980s, complaining about Scott, Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron and Cronenberg’s silly obsession with sharks, aliens, humans-turned flies and machine robot men in over-budget, silly kid movies taking over realistic dramas. Those people were simple-minded idiots then. And you guys are now.
Hahaha. You couldn’t be a stronger case in point if you tried. So offended. So indignant. Taking it so personally. I hope no one asks Coppola or Scorsese if they want to direct one of these things. One by one you might have to conclude that all the great veteran directors of the ’70s and ’80s are ‘idiots’ and ‘surface-level thinkers’ who can’t grasp the great profundity of stories about a costumed detective created to entertain children. You might find yourself in a bit of a catch-22 as a ‘cinema fan’.
I am a strong case talking to a person with no case. The great veteran film directors of the 70s and 80s made movies about sharks, aliens and robots. Is that shit not for kids? Man, you’re just a hypocritical idiot. That’s the real catch 22. How’s that for offense? Cinema man, out.
Mature profound cinema man, out after 40 or so heartbroken posts here defending the honour of flamboyantly costumed children’s characters from the mean old New Hollywood men. Hahaha.
Scott makes movies about aliens and robots. If you can defend that but criticize superhero films as childish, then you’re a moronic fucking hypocrite. And yes, I’m more mature than a cunt who actually writes out “hahaha.” Don’t message me again, idiot. It won’t be read and you’ll be blocked. Fuck off, now. 41th post and out.
Oh, you’re back! I guess you saw the Bat Signal. Another evil-doer disrespecting our greatest cultural treasures.
You don’t even understand the argument Cronenberg was making, it’s really pretty funny. As though he was or would ever indict fantasy and science fiction and horror in general as opposed to a specific corporately controlled story about a detective who wears a bat costume created to entertain children in the 1940s. It’s just 100% outrage and hurt feelings on your end.
Hahaha.
Just imagine it’s the Joker and I’m an immature cunt writing a Batman comic.
The problem with superhero movies is that they’re almost always the same thing, just repackaged. It was definitely intriguing and fun at first, but when the same stories are being told but just with a different wrapping, it starts getting old and the thing is, studios are just popping out these superhero movies like crazy. Almost every summer, the biggest tentpole films are either a superhero movie or a 3D animation movie. It’s beginning to feel like cinema’s equivalent to McDonalds fast food.
If you think they’re all the same then you really haven’t seen any, or bothered to actually figure out what’s going on. It’s one of the most stupid critic and blandest one you can pull out, along with the infamous “it’s not original” or “there are too many of them”.
*Keyword: almost.
But thanks for taking the time to read.
I’m one of those that loved Prometheus,I understand the gripes with the two scientists,but the sets,visuals and ideas presented outweighed any plot holes or dopey character actions. I’ve seen it multiple times,Alien and Blade Runner are in my top 10 favorite films,and although it never reaches those heights,I still prefer Prometheus to most releases over the last years.
Ridley would be wasted on a cape flick, especially if its the kind of factory shat sausage that MCU has become at this point. Directors have no control of the flick at MCU.
He’s hardly one to judge. Ridley Scott has made his career by recycling old stale historical myths from Western culture and perpetuating falsehoods to his audience. His Historical dramas are less realistic than his sci-fy endeavors: 1492, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, none pay even the slightest attention to truth or accuracy. Even recent history that should be less open to interpretation is up for grabs in films like Blackhawk Down and American Gangster… then there’s the grey areas of films like Robin Hood and Exodus, which are fictional, but still manage to be ridiculous in the way in which he tries to imbue historical persons with modern 21 century sentiments or worse still, cast white actors to play people from the middle east…the general sense one gets watching him cast actors with english accents to play non-English characters, is that he and the other English directors are trying to retroactively colonize History. He’s not an artist… Artists try to show you something new each time and push the status quo… Ridley is the status quo.
Uuhh, the worlds first feature length film and blockbuster was Birth of a Nation. It is still taught in film schools as a classic, which it is, but with out any social criticism. That’s the beginning of Hollywood and nothing much has changed since so I’m not sure what Scorsese and Ridley are referring too? What golden age are they talking about? When minorities characters were either played in black face or left out of the film altogether? Or how about later when they hired real ethnic actors to play disparaging depictions of themselves? How about today with all the barely veiled racism and misogyny in film? He thinks spandex is the problem? How about a lack of substance? How about the fact that we keep telling our selves the same culturally acceptable lies over and over again so we don’t have to take a long hard, honest look int he mirror? A state that both these directors have directly contributed to.
Man that is funny stuff from Scott. He is at the forefront of crap cinema. He has this reputation that doesn’t match reality. His bes films were 30+ years ago, and those were not as good as their reputation. Critical acclaim he has received, but I have always found critical acclaim = shit only a film student or pretentious asshole likes.