"If you don't get it, you're a moron!"

*ARRGH, THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD!*

Sorry Ridley, your "truthfullness" seems to stem from this rampant fanboy fanfiction idea that it's more ironic that Deckard is the last of the six Replicants. Though Hampton Fancher's original draft of the script (as well as David People's re-write) includes the idea of six Replicants aside from the four that Deckard has to hunt down and "retire"; though the fifth Replicant is killed by an "electronic gate". There were plans for a sixth Replicant, named Mary; but after time and budget restraints were put into place, she was cut out of the screenplay. So where is this sixth Replicant? Many (including myself) believe it to be Edward James Olmos' character, Gaff (who leaves origami behind and is generally a enigmatic and pessimistic character, like Roy Batty is believed to be before the finale). Others (including Ridley Scott) seem to think that it's simply cooler that Deckard is the sixth and final Replicant. Both writers haven't commented on the inconsistancy throughout the film's 25-year existance; simply because they understand the relevancy of a film being open for discussion, debate, and overall speculation. Scott, on the other hand, is a bonehead that can only be born of Hollywood-style filmmaking. He claims to have never gotten past the first ten pages of Philip K. Dick's source novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?; simply citing that the novel was too dense for him to comprehend. It definitely shows in many of his films (now I know why William Monahan's script for Kingdom of Heaven was so dumbed down for the theatrical release of that film in 2005; the director's cut is a mighty improvement but I'm certain it was too "dense" for Sir Ridley). And even though the film Blade Runner contains very little of it's original source material, it's clear that Scott can't simply wrap his mind around the simple opinion that the film's story becomes a more emotional and impactful story if Deckard is simply a detective becoming more and more cynical (less human than the androids he's been sent to murder) as his mission progresses; his relationship with the safe Replicant Rachel is one of pure sexual satisfaction, not emotional love (something that antagonist Batty carried for his surviving Replicants, even moreso for Daryl Hannah's Pris, who's seen as his lover). Sympathizing with the monster is one of the major themes of Blade Runner. Here, Roy Batty is the monster - or so it seems through the deception of the storytelling - but we find his character to be wholly sympathetic and vulnerable. Throughout Blade Runner, we don't sympathize with Rick Deckard simply because this isn't his story. He isn't the monster to feel guilty for; he becomes the monster filled with guilt.

So, Mr. Scott, I'll refrain from immature namecalling and simply say that despite your monumental 1982 film, Blade Runner, being a masterpiece, your subsequent films are awful trite; and I don't believe that I'll be plugging anymore fan support (or money) your way.

Ridley Scott, you're a prick.

Whoops, I broke my promise.

[Message edited by nuts_score on 12-22-2007]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TimT:
Should'nt this be posted in the Just Movies section?

---

Yeah but it's just us here so it's not that big of a deal... but I'll be kind and mention the score. While I enjoyed parts, it's a little too synthy in others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
Andrew, this you will find unsurprising but equally frustrating like his comment on Blade Runner: Ridley Scott recently stated that science fiction, as a genre, was dead: “There’s nothing original. We’ve seen it all before. Been there. Done it,” he said. Asked to pick out examples, he said: “All of them. Yes, all of them.”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article2351086 .ece

Now, that's a mouthful of s.h.i.t. from such a mediocre director. Ronald D. Moore pulled an amazing achievement with his re-invigoration of science fiction on Battlestar Galactica; clearly, Scott has terrible taste (if that wasn't obvious already). Alien is good, but other than that I don't find his output compelling; Blade Runner is O.K., but it's boring at times.

---

I rest my case. Thank you Sean. I'm sorry about not being able to answer your calls. If you can, shoot a line my way tomorrow.

I don't have a problem with Ridley Scott's subsequent career either. Yeah, he's mainstream, but someone's got to make good films like BLACK HAWK DOWN and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN where very bad ones might have been made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
(now I know why William Monahan's script for Kingdom of Heaven was so dumbed down for the theatrical release of that film in 2005; the director's cut is a mighty improvement but I'm certain it was too "dense" for Sir Ridley).

---

Also, you slam Andrew's well-founded comment on William Monahan's script and it's dumbing down, for Kingdom Of Heaven: If you watch the Director's Cut DVD it goes through the process of how the script, admittedly a pretty long one at that, was dumbed down and grounded into what we received, and then the version we eventually saw on DVD. Andrew isn't writing without authority there, he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:

Also, you slam Andrew's well-founded comment on William Monahan's script and it's dumbing down, for Kingdom Of Heaven: If you watch the Director's Cut DVD it goes through the process of how the script, admittedly a pretty long one at that, was dumbed down and grounded into what we received, and then the version we eventually saw on DVD. Andrew isn't writing without authority there, he knows what he's talking about.

---

I own the DVDs in question and have seen the documentaries too. How anyone could blame Ridley Scott for being held to a two-hour edit by the studio, and use it as evidence that the director did not understand the subtlety of the script (hey, it's good, but not that subtle in any form) amazes me. You have Ridley Scott AND his editor saying they were cutting two films in parallel KNOWING they weren't going to be allowed to release a theatrical edit with the child's story. To suggest that this was in some way a fault of the director is just trying to make an argument out of contrary evidence in the hope that noone will notice you're actually talking rubbish. Andrew does not know what he's talking about Sean, he has no authority, and neither do you.

And you choose to miss my point about TV vs film. Ridley Scott was probably not talking about TV when he commented on the paucity of sci-fi. I'm sure Ridley Scott thinks he can comment on the state of sci-fi in films (pretty bad to be honest - apart from 2046 and THE PRESTIGE, there hasn't been much for years) without commenting on TV. Scott wouldn't care about TV - it's not the battleground he's worked for years on, and he probably doesn't watch it anyway. He's not a sci-fi afficianado, true, but it isn't a crime to have not seen everything out there. One of these days when time is not so short, I hope to see more than a couple of the episodes myself. (Heaven help me if I don't agree that it is the only thing in media worth posting about, but since we differ on so many things, I'd say it's looking pretty likely.)

If Ridley Scott thinks that sci-fi filmmaking today is " . . . nothing original. We’ve seen it all before. Been there. Done it,” then he's certainly mistaken. Perhaps he shoudl look back at his own films: Gladiator certainly has been done before (many times over), American Gangster is nothing new, and Black Hawk Down was mess of patriotic jingoism. And the reason why he states, “All of them. Yes, all of them,” as his examples leads me to believe he doesn't even take the time with ANY of the films that I mentioned in my previous paragraph.

Also Michael, I did think about what I was saying for well more than a second. Monahan's Kingdom of Heaven screenplay is available on the three disc Director's Cut DVD (along with multitudes of production notes); so I came into this debate with a strong rationale to my reasoning. Hopefully I didn't seem too thick-headed however.

Another of my problems with Sir Ridley and the "Fox mishandling of Kingdom of Heaven": why didn't Scott fight for his intended vision to be seen theatrically? He's Ridley Scott for bloody sake! To a studio like Fox, this man is automatic bank (well, except for the maligned A Good Year) yet they still release a sanitized version of a spectacular film, AND HE LET'S THEM DO IT! Plus, he's the sole producer. Something is rotten in Denmark if you ask me. I've lately found Ridley Scott's words to have a certain etching to them; he's not trustworthy in my opinion. He's certainly been jaded by the Hollywood system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Michael, I agree with you on the basis of Scott's comments on sci-fi. He probably hasn't seen Christopher Nolan's The Prestige or David Cronenberg's eXistenZ; two films which I find to be the highlight of science fiction filmmaking in the 21st Century.

---

To be honest, I was only thinking of the last couple of years, and eXistenZ feels like 1999 to me for some reason. I've obviously misremembered here.

quote:

---

Along with Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly...

---

I haven't seen it.

quote:

---

Bryan Singer's X-Men films

---

I think that's being very generous. For me, only Christopher Nolan and Ang Lee (however problematically) have escaped the vortex of comic book superhero stories without collapsing into camp extravaganza. I like the first act of the first film, but the rest falls apart for me. And it's more mythos-teenage-drama to me... I just can't fit it into my idea of sci-fi.

(Just like for example, I don't include the fine film THE HOST in sci-fi, even though there's a monster running around - because it's not really about that. The monster is just a freak circumstance in an otherwise familiar world.)

quote:

---

Steven Soderbergh's Solaris remake

---

True. How could I forget one of my favourite films. Again I was probably only thinking back 2-3 years here.

quote:

---

Satoshi Kon's Paprika

---

Never heard of it. Worth seeing, obviously?

quote:

---

Coppola's Youth Without Youth

---

I haven't heard of anyone who thought this was good yet? And is it sci-fi? I thought it was a period drama of sorts about a man who ages back--- oh, yeah, that is kind of sci-fi. :S

quote:

---

Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men

---

While I have my own issues with it, it's a film that's definitely worth seeing once. I wouldn't call it essential though. A lot of sci-fi hardcore guys seem to hate this for some reason.

quote:

---

Min Byeong-cheon's Natural City

---

I haven't heard of this either.

quote:

---

Alex Proyas Dark City, the Wachowski Bros. The Matrix (only the first film)

---

They're both good, and the former is the better for me, but we're now heading back 10 and 8 years respectively. That's not the now. (Or were Scott's comments about everything post-BLADE RUNNER?)

quote:

---

Spielberg's Minority Report

---

It's good directing at times, but I wouldn't say it was terribly good overall, as a film or as sci-fi.

quote:

---

AI: Artificial Intelligence

---

Yeah, I'll count that.

quote:

---

Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later

---

I guess I've gone along with those who class it as a zombi film, but perhaps cautionary sci-fi is better. I like this one. I suppose like some others, it was going back more than a couple of years.

quote:

---

Michael Winterbottom's Code 46

---

It counts, but is it a success? I think the use of Shanghai as a futuristic environment is brilliant, but the film just doesn't work.

quote:

---

Kiriya Kazuaki's Casshern, Shane Carruth's Primer, Herzog's The Wild Blue Yonder

---

I didn't know Herzog had done a scifi film (I thought Yonder was a mockumentary?). Primer is in my collection and waiting to be watched - I've heard very good things. I don't know Kazuaki. (Sense an Anglo-bias in my reading?)

quote:

---

Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (phew!)

---

I love this film. But if you count one Charlie Kaufman, surely you've got to count them all? I'd be more comfortable filing this one under surrealist romance... Just because there's a machine that takes us into people's head - as opposed to a natural doorway on the 7.5 floor that leads into John Malkovitch's mind - doesn't confirm it as sci-fi, I think. And would you count a David Lynch film that flirted with sci-fi concepts too? (Certainly the transposition of bodies that occurs midway through LOST HIGHWAY could be viewed that way, but again surrealism seems a more appropriate label.)

You certainly have a wide knowledge of the recent genre. I must show you the short film I made that started off as an alternate-history/scifi piece and edited as a more surrealist take on the world we live in. Would be curious about your thoughts.

Though you left off 2046, on reflection perhaps you were correct to, as it's more a film about the 60s in Hong Kong, where the main character just happens to write sci-fi novellas. It's not really about sci-fi, and I'd be curious to see the film WKW set out to make, and later retreated from.

Last note - though it's very sentimental, if we're going back a few years, I should mention Scott Hicks' HEARTS IN ATLANTIS, which I found a nice covert sci-fi piece. and Assaya's DEMONLOVER fits into sci-fi, I think.

quote:

---

If Ridley Scott thinks that sci-fi filmmaking today is " . . . nothing original. We’ve seen it all before. Been there. Done it,” then he's certainly mistaken. Perhaps he shoudl look back at his own films: Gladiator certainly has been done before (many times over)

---

I think its contributions were more aesthetic. What he probably wants is a new look and sound for things. He's very much a surface director - not a man for psychology.

quote:

---

Black Hawk Down was mess of patriotic jingoism.

---

I don't agree. It was very patriotic, but I think the very idea of that story can only come out being very pro-American. What he did do was direct it magnificently, I thought. It's a logistical triumph, and one of the few films soldiers (I'm related to a few) can watch without feeling attacked or scoffing at the inaccuracies. There's a lot of room for a film like that. I prize it above all other post-1997 war films save THE THIN RED LINE (which is inestimably better, since it's about more than the immediate circumstances, unlike BHD).

quote:

---

And the reason why he states, “All of them. Yes, all of them,” as his examples leads me to believe he doesn't even take the time with ANY of the films that I mentioned in my previous paragraph.

---

He's one of those people who speaks his mind, even when he speaks in ignorance. But rather than rail against it, I just wouldn't bother. Do I get upset when Quentin Tarantino comments on anything in the landscape of modern cinema as though he were the defining feature of it?

quote:

---

Also Michael, I did think about what I was saying for well more than a second. Monahan's Kingdom of Heaven screenplay is available on the three disc Director's Cut DVD (along with multitudes of production notes); so I came into this debate with a strong rationale to my reasoning. Hopefully I didn't seem too thick-headed however.

---

Ok, if the director's cut is less intelligent that the script in some key areas, then I'll concede that point. You obviously know more than me there. I would hope that one of the things the original script did a little better was not turn all members of religious organisations into a pack of scheming, dishonest zealots, a message that comes through VERY loud and clear in the final film.

I do think you have a certain naivete about where Scott's position would be on defending every cut to the death. If he holds out for a film that doesn't turn out to be a hit, he doesn't get another run at the epic film genre without it being a lot less interesting than Monaham's script. He joins the James Cameron club. If he gives them the film of the length they want, then it tanks, his original position gets vindicated, and he gets to advance that position to the home video and tv market for years thereafter, the place where really are tested in the long run. (He might even hope that his director's cut holds out SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION famously did in the long run, far more popular on video than in cinemas.)

And perhaps he was effectively (if not actually) contractually required to deliver the short cut for cinemas. The most-famous hissy fits from directors in modern cinema seem to involve them moving off the films for good, not getting their position across.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
I've lately found Ridley Scott's words to have a certain etching to them; he's not trustworthy in my opinion. He's certainly been jaded by the Hollywood system.

[Message edited by nuts_score on 12-23-2007]

---

Paprika is a recently released anime (perhaps you haven't recieved it in Australia?) and it lends some very surreal ideas to sci-fi; and it's wonderfully visual. Seek it out when you get a chance.

Youth Without Youth can be considered sci-fi in the same sense that The Prestige can. Anyone not expecting the sci-fi elements of the plot will probably not enjoy the film to its full extent.

I've never seen this "hardcore sci-fi guys" dissent you speak of. I would consider myself one of these minority-fellows, but I have very little problems with Children of Men

Natural City is similar to Blade Runner in it's depiction of the future, but the plot meanders about. It's still a wondeful film of ideas, however.

I agree on Minority Report; I only included it because I know that a lot of fans around these parts love this film. I only liked it. A.I. was much better; sappy ending, warts, and all.

Same here with Code 46; as usual, a beautiful attempt by Winterbottom (the best director working in the United Kingdom currently, eh?) but misguided and tedious.

The Wild Blue Yonder is somewhat mockumentary (in the traditional Herzog fashion); but it includes a VAST majority of new ideas and the main character is from an advanced alien civilization. Certainly one of the only sci-fi documentaries. Casshern is also a case of a wild and meandering plot, but this film is a sight to behold.

Eternal Sunshine is sci-fi; don't think otherwise. I would consider Lost Highway to include sci-fi elements, but surrealism might fit better.

Send me some type of link to your film. I would love the chance to see it.

Both Demonlover and Hearts in Atlantis suck; they could have been so much more.

If Ridley Scott doesn't think that The Matrix brought a new look and sound to mainstream action and sci-fi films, perhaps his brain doesn't function at capacity. Unfortunately, the organic future in David Cronenberg's eXistenZ is ultimately much more interesting and rewarding than the slick visuals that the Brothers Wachowski crafted. Even Alex Proyas' retro-stylings of Dark City are intricately more fun than The Matrix.

I would rather watch Black Hawk Down than Saving Private Ryan. But why should I when I have a beautiful copy of The Thin Red Line?

Michael, would you like to hear Tarantino's thoughts on Michael Mann's Miami Vice? He certainly is an idiot!

quote:

---

Originally posted by vdemona:
I don't think he's jaded at all. I think he's pragmatic.

---

So can't we verify to Scott that sci-fi is far from dead?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Paprika is a recently released anime (perhaps you haven't recieved it in Australia?) and it lends some very surreal ideas to sci-fi; and it's wonderfully visual. Seek it out when you get a chance.

---

Will do. Sounds worth a look. GHOST IN THE SHELL is one of my favourite sci-fi films. (And no - we haven't had PAPRIKA here to my knowledge.)

quote:

---

Youth Without Youth can be considered sci-fi in the same sense that The Prestige can. Anyone not expecting the sci-fi elements of the plot will probably not enjoy the film to its full extent.

---

Is it good though? (Oh, and I probably didn't project the humour properly above!)

quote:

---

I've never seen this "hardcore sci-fi guys" dissent you speak of. I would consider myself one of these minority-fellows, but I have very little problems with Children of Men

---

I spent a day earlier this year in England with Gary Dalkin, who used to run Film Music on the Web. He is the real deal when it comes to sci-fi. I wasn't crazy about Minority Report, but he destroyed what was left that afternoon. I couldn't get to the bottom of what he said was a serious reaction in sci-fi circles to the novel on which COM is based (however loosely), but the dislike seemed to carry over to the film.

(This has nothing of course to do with why I wasn't crazy about it, which was just an instinctive reaction to what I saw - a fixation on technical prowess and symbolism over a truly compelling story, albeit with some magnificent moments along the way. Also - I find it very hard to forgive a film that ends on the wrong note.)

quote:

---

Natural City is similar to Blade Runner in it's depiction of the future, but the plot meanders about. It's still a wondeful film of ideas, however.

---

Sounds like one worth looking at.

quote:

---

Same here with Code 46; as usual, a beautiful attempt by Winterbottom (the best director working in the United Kingdom currently, eh?) but misguided and tedious.

---

Speaking of ending on a bad note, the use of Coldplay and Samantha Morton's literal narration to wrap up that film really sent me out mad.

quote:

---

The Wild Blue Yonder is somewhat mockumentary (in the traditional Herzog fashion); but it includes a VAST majority of new ideas and the main character is from an advanced alien civilization. Certainly one of the only sci-fi documentaries. Casshern is also a case of a wild and meandering plot, but this film is a sight to behold.

---

I should see this - Herzog seems mostly to be a hit with me. I never did get to see RESCUE DAWN unfortunately. Too much around at the time.

quote:

---

Eternal Sunshine is sci-fi; don't think otherwise. I would consider Lost Highway to include sci-fi elements, but surrealism might fit better.

---

I've been thinking about ETERNAL SUNSHINE all day because of that remark I made this morning... going back and forth on it. I think my resistance to it being sci-fi is the fact that the 'science' and 'machine' that are there to make it sci-fi are macguffins. It's like calling John Woo's FACE OFF sci fi, because it has a machine that can do something fantastique. And when you take the machine out of ETERNAL SUNSHINE, you're left with a very surreal/jokey play on psychology. I know it's splitting hairs - the argument wouldn't hold up in court, but that's why I don't think of it as sci-fi.

quote:

---

Send me some type of link to your film. I would love the chance to see it.

---

It would have to be a dvd. I hate people seeing any of my films - even the one that isn't that good - in internet resolution. Call it one of my personal ten commandments.

quote:

---

Both Demonlover and Hearts in Atlantis suck; they could have been so much more.

---

I don't really agree there. I don't think DEMONLOVER is terribly good, but it has some very strong sequences. HEARTS on the other hand may be (as one critic described it) 'emotional pornography', but works for me. The sure hand of the maker of SNOW FALLING ON CEDARS is at work here, with two good leads.

quote:

---

If Ridley Scott doesn't think that The Matrix brought a new look and sound to mainstream action and sci-fi films, perhaps his brain doesn't function at capacity. Unfortunately, the organic future in David Cronenberg's eXistenZ is ultimately much more interesting and rewarding than the slick visuals that the Brothers Wachowski crafted. Even Alex Proyas' retro-stylings of Dark City are intricately more fun than The Matrix.

---

No comment.

quote:

---

Michael, would you like to hear Tarantino's thoughts on Michael Mann's Miami Vice? He certainly is an idiot!

---

It would certainly test my claim to remain aloof when that man opens his mouth...

quote:

---

And, finally, yes Monahan's script is much more even-handed than the final film (though I think the director's cut shows less of the scheming side of both primary beliefs represented in the picture). Monahan also conducted a gargantuan amount of research. Unfortunately, he won the Best Screenplay Oscar for the wrong film.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
Michael sure hasn't heard of a great many films and has a short term memory spanning only 2 years into the past. Beyond that, you're "going way back."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
So, Mr. Scott, I'll refrain from immature namecalling and simply say that despite your monumental 1982 film, Blade Runner, being a masterpiece, your subsequent films are awful trite; and I don't believe that I'll be plugging anymore fan support (or money) your way.

Ridley Scott, you're a prick.

[/B]

---

Kirk

Now, that's a mouthful of s.h.i.t. from such a mediocre director. Ronald D. Moore pulled an amazing achievement with his re-invigoration of science fiction on Battlestar Galactica; clearly, Scott has terrible taste (if that wasn't obvious already). Alien is good, but other than that I don't find his output compelling; Blade Runner is O.K., but it's boring at times.<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rest my case. Thank you Sean. I'm sorry about not being able to answer your calls. If you can, shoot a line my way tomorrow.

Something else that I wanted to add: I brought up the well-known fact that Scott hadn't read Do Androids . . . before beginning production on the film (and hasn't gone back to read it sense). Not to sound like a complete ass, I've read Philip K. Dick's novel. Sure, it is quite dense (as is most of Dick's writings); but if he thought it was too dense to get through the opening ten pages, then certainly he isn't a true fan of sci-fi.[/B]<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

While Scott may be full of it, I don't think his movies are mediocre. His attention to detail is astounding and his dubbed "Ridleygrams" are really intresting sketches, especialy since they all came from his imagination. He also has a great sense of invironmental detail and depth. He's a hell of alot better director than most of the big guys out there now INCLUDING George Lucas, Coppola, etc. He's probably up there with Scorcese and Michael Mann. Kingdom of Heaven, when viewed extended, is a fantastic vusial experience.

Just look at his resume:
Gladiator, Black Rain, Alien, Blade Runner, Blackhawk Down, Thelma and Louise, Kingdom of Heaven. And these are just starters.

Just because he made an arrogant statement doesn't give you the right to judge this amazing body of work.

Just because he made an arrogant statement doesn't give you the right to judge this amazing body of work.

You find his CV impressive, I don't. I like Alien, Blade Runner is just O.K., sames goes for Kingdom Of Heaven; BUT HAVE YOU SEEN G.I. JANE!!?? (it's just nothing short of outstanding! and has Trevor Jones's best score since Kiss Of Death!)... The rest are utterly forgettable, except for the Hans Zimmer scores separated from those movies. There's no denying Scott can have a good eye when shooting any one of his films, but that counts for nothing when the movies don't resonate with you; IMO, his static shots are among the best in the business, while he coverage of an action scene is a usual miserable failure (like Gladiator). His "amazing body of work" is "amazing" to you, not me, not Andrew... Michael might side with you, though; he loves A Good Year.

Why is it O.K. to give Ridley Scott a free pass for an arrogant statement and then blast others for lesser statements? Just check out a lot of the outrageous comments thrown at composers for little, less arrogant, and harmless statements they've made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scorro:
Sad... that you would write such a thing, and don't seem to appreciate good filmmaking. At a minimum Ridley Scott easily has one of the best eyes for beautiful lighting and the ability to capture it on film. He has shown that time and again. "Kingdom Of Heaven" is one of the most beautifully filmed movies I've seen.

---

This is the duality of the issue Scorro. Though you didn't quote the entirety of my post, I stated that I hoped to refrain from word calling as Sir Ridley has. But such a blatant out-right defamation of not allowing his film to be esoteric among its devoted and intelligent fanbase
struck a wrong chord within my synapsis.

And you have me all wrong. I certainly do appreciate fine filmmaking, as anyone who regularly posts here can attest. But to me, Scott is simply a workman-like director. With little-to-no enthusiasm for his projects, he moves from picture to picture and dictates that his vision is essential on set. Do you wonder why Scott has had so many harsh creative bankrupts with his filmmaking colleagues and the only bloke he can seem to keep around is the equally egotistical Russell Crowe? Sir Ridley is a directorial tyrant, of which only the likes of Michael Bay can match. Sure, he does possess an "artist's eye" from his training as a photojournalist, but it wouldn't hardly be as visionary without the help of such true artists as Derek Vanlint, Jordan Cronenweth, or John Mathieson (as well as countless art directors and production designers).

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
'Directorial tyrant'?

While I don't mean to draw too strong a comparison to others, I don't sense that Hitchcock, Michael Mann, Stanley Kubrick, and various others are the most democratic of individuals.

---

Ah, perhaps, but at least these fellows preffered the fans to appreciate their work.

Back the f*ck off Ridley Scott. He's doing a hell of alot more to the film industry than any of you guys are doin' right now. Sitting on your butts and just plain wining Wahhh.. Scott offended me.. there's no original sci-fi out there. Waaaah. My movie is the best. Waaaaah. Gimmie a break. If you put your heart and soul into something, you would think it's the best thing out there since sliced bread. He just has the balls to speak his mind.

You guys wanna talk abotu director's who are Tyrants? The man behind French Connection taunted Gene Hackman in below freezing temperature when he was filming all those out-door stake-out scenes to the point where he was ready to tear the man appart. You think all those aggrivated looks on Hackman were acting? He really WAS pissed off. They say that was the coldest winter in NYC on record.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AaronR1074:
Wow, this is a total one-sided Scott-bashing thread. I mean ffs, the man pales in comparison to the arrogance of James Cameron who I think went so far as to fire his cinematographer on Aliens and almost drowned half his cast and crew of The Abyss. And George Lucas is no saint. Do any of you watch extra features on the DVDs? The cast pretty much taunted the man on Episode IV. Francis Ford Coppola is a total hack-job. His "steal from the best" line in the making of Dracula prompts that it's ok to borrow ideas from older films and not even care about writing an original story.

Back the f*ck off Ridley Scott. He's doing a hell of alot more to the film industry than any of you guys are doin' right now. Sitting on your butts and just plain wining Wahhh.. Scott offended me.. there's no original sci-fi out there. Waaaah. My movie is the best. Waaaaah. Gimmie a break. If you put your heart and soul into something, you would think it's the best thing out there since sliced bread. He just has the balls to speak his mind.

You guys wanna talk abotu director's who are Tyrants? The man behind French Connection taunted Gene Hackman in below freezing temperature when he was filming all those out-door stake-out scenes to the point where he was ready to tear the man appart. You think all those aggrivated looks on Hackman were acting? He really WAS pissed off. They say that was the coldest winter in NYC on record.

---

For the record, ouch. Certainly this is a one-sided arguement. I'll make no claims that I'm being fair and balanced; I don't like Ridley Scott, plain and simple. His work after Blade Runner are middling bores; and the reason is his lack of enthusiasm. Certainly, if we put a lot of hard work and effort into something we'll grow to love it (and rightfully so). Michael and I have created short films that may not be masterpieces in others' eyes, but we love them because WE made them; WE don't have the resources that Scott and other directors have. WE aren't big name directors. Scott puts his crew through various rigamaroles and tries to convince everyone that everything is "his idea", "his film" (for God's sake, watch the Dangerous Days documentary on Blade Runner, the only person he seemed kind to was the ill-beyond-repair Jordan Cronenweth, who's one of the REAL artists on BR).

For the record, I've always thought James Cameron was fairly second-rate. He makes jazzed-up B-movies, and that's about it. George Lucas is one of the absolute WORST directors to ever to hold a camera. In regards to FFC's comment, every single director steals from previous directors. It's the nature of the profession (just like any art form) and most honest directors are willing to admit what they stole and why (and at least Coppola doesn't just rip a scene off directly, like Quentin Tarantino). And how would Dracula need to be an original story?! It's based on a 19th Century novel by Bram Stoker! And there's been so many film versions of it before it would be near impossible not to pay some sort of homage to a previous filmmaker. William Friedkin (of The French Connection) is a hell of a director; and many cast and crews shoot outside in below-freezing temperatures. And if Freidkin wanted Hackman in a certain mood, he needed to achieve it the best way he knew how (this happens all the time). Directors don't need to be abusive, they just need to do their job.

My biggest problem with Scott (other than his facist robbing of other peoples work on his films) is that he flat out called a very vocal majority of his fanbase, of his best film, he called us out and called us "morons".

The obvious factors here are as follows:
The glossy-red eyes in Deckerds appartment shown as Rachel and Deckerd are looking towards the camera at once.

The Unicorn Dream sequence

The Origami Unicorn he almost crumples under his foot.

Gaff: "It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does".

What Scott is trying to say is that.. if you don't get it.. your a moron. I'm not going to completely re-arange my work of art of a movie just to tell the audience how to think. The studios have been messing with that film for years which is evident in the horrendous voice-overs.

He's just telling it how it is man. Don't take it so personaly. There's really no reason to argue if Ford is a replicant or not because after The Final Cut it is a null issue. In the end, it is the makers of the film who decide the fate of the characters NOT the audience. They just have to deal with it like it or not.

I take it with a grain of salt just the same as when John Lennon said The Beatles were more popular then Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AaronR1074:
Back the f*ck off Ridley Scott. He's doing a hell of alot more to the film industry than any of you guys are doin' right now.

---

Yes, I've seen G.I. Jane. I just can't get enough of that "alot more" Scott's doing.

quote:

---

Sitting on your butts and just plain wining Wahhh.. Scott offended me.. there's no original sci-fi out there. Waaaah. My movie is the best. Waaaaah. Gimmie a break.

---

Break gimmied!

Message boards are for the armchair commentator: Deal with it. As for Ridley Scott and his sci-fi comments once again: Ignorance is not bliss, and Scott is obviously not in tune with what makes science fiction great today, and just because he's bankrupt on ideas about what to do with it other toy with an old film of his, it doesn't mean it's dead or that he's right (he's wrong); James Cameron has this problem, too, with his own comments about what Avatar is supposed to do for science fiction: Sorry, James, it's already been done and most likely better.

quote:

---

If you put your heart and soul into something, you would think it's the best thing out there since sliced bread. He just has the balls to speak his mind.

---

Tom Cruise speaks his mind, too, and you know what? He sounds like a deranged lunatic! So does Ridley Scott.

The glossy eyes are a product of the lighting used by DP Jordan Cronenweth to achieve the "glossy" eyes. Sean Young's character, Rachael, being a replicant needs to have the "glossy" eyes. Ford walks behind her and in direct relation to the lighting source. This is the true reason for Ford's eye glowing. Why they haven't fixed this problem subsequently in the Final Cut is due to Ridley Scott's "ultimate vision". Anyone who doesn't know that the "unicorn dream sequence" is essentially a test visual for Legend that Scott thought would look great in BR needs to look up some production history; meaning, the unicorn origami has always been there. The unicorn dream? Not so much. This isn't just an audience reaction, but a cast and crew reaction as well.

Firstly, in the novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the character of Deckard is not, NOT, an android. There is a moment in the novel where Deckard is "arrested" and taken to a false police station in the city with the false police claiming that he is, in fact, an android; but this scene exists just to screw with the psyche of Rick Deckard the bureaucrat. I don't know if this scene is retained in ealier drafts of the script; but it obviously didn't make it to the final version. And Scott has stated many times that he hasn't read the book due to it being "too dense". Both screenwriters, Hampton Fancher and David Peoples, have not discussed the replicant issue; and they're smart not to. It's pretty obvious that Fancher wanted to retain the themes of the novel in the film, and Deckard's becoming less and less human throughout the film is the key essential thread of PKD's primary idea in the novel. Harrison Ford hates the fact that Scott considers Deckard a replicant. During post-production, when the idea was initially brought before Scott, Ford conversed with him and they ultimately decided that Deckard was not a replicant. Ultimately, Ford has said that he feels betrayed due to Ridley Scott's altered feelings. In terms of memories, we know that the only known memories Rachael (a replicant) has of her mother and her entire life are when she was younger; and they were taken from Tyrell's own neice. Deckard has photgraphs all through his apartment; many of them show his deceased wife, and the pictures are very current. Throughout the film, we're constanly seeing how the replicants experience more emotions than they should. Even their creator, Tyrell, tells Deckard that the Nexus-6 models are "more human than human." This is evident in Batty's affection for his "retired" replicants, Leon's anger after seeing Zhora murdered in cold blood, Batty's intense love for Pris, and Batty's ultimate saving of Deckard and his real memories ("most lost in time; like tears, in rain"). Deckard is becoming more and more "robotic" through his loss of humanity in "retiring" these physical lifeforms. Deckard is robotic in the fact that he is less human than an synthetic being. This is the way it was written. If Ridley Scott wanted to convey that all along, than he should have talked with both of his writers, and his actor, and they could've worked on making the story work in that favor.

But Scott stating "he's a replicant, get over it", during the aftermath of the film's creation and reception and recognition makes the film less of a mysterious enigma. And the theme of the film - like the book - is what it means to be a human, and ultimately rediscovering your own humanity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AaronR1074:
I take it with a grain of salt just the same as when John Lennon said The Beatles were more popular then Jesus Christ.

---

And I'm going to make two comments that will ultimatly upset a whole lot of people; but please, take them with a grain of salt. Don't read any further if you think you might be too sensitive.

Lennon's comment, although brimming with hubris, is absolutely correct. The Beatles had legions of screaming and emotional fans, from all age groups; Jesus didn't during his time. In fact, as much as I don't want to anger people over this comment, it has to be said: even Adolf Hitler was more popular and influential that Jesus (during his time).

**Please take note, I mean for these comments to be in no way blasphemous or denouncing Christianity; nor do I condone the atrocious acts of Adolf Hitler but they are utterly concievable if you take a step back and consider the facts.**

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
Andrew, does your mother still steal your copy of John Debney's score for The Passion Of The Christ?

---

I think that he would be better served to have let the original film stand on it's own and make some new films instead of just rehashing the same old ones.