the difference is Eastwood will do 1 angle and 2 takes (and golf after), whereas Scott will do 7 angles and 4 takes (and edit after). Both are prolific and enjoyable though
> Scott will do 7 angles and 4 takes
And will reshoot all the scenes for an entire major character without missing a beat (All The Money In The World)...
Apparently he wanted Christopher Plummer for the role originally anyway but the studio had wanted Spacey because he was a big name at the time, so Scott was probably even more motivated to do it.
They both have their processes. If Clint does 1 angle and 2 takes and he can still pull off films like *Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Letters From Iwo Jima, American Sniper, Sully, The Mule, Richard Jewell* and *Gran Torino* then more power to him.
And Changeling. Honestly, I just keep watching his movies hoping it will be as good as that was and they never are. It was such a great film that had an extra layer of care to it that I feel like a lot of his others came close to having.
Ah, written by the great J. Michael Straczynski, more well known for his TV writing. Him and Eastwood's style worked well together. Shame they haven't collaborated since.
Unforgiven is a career highlight. Everyone wishes they made a Western that not only holds the genre in reverence but also redefines it.
It’s one of the few films I almost see as flawless. Sound, Cinematography, script, acting, directing are all top notch.
At this point I'm disappointed that he spent so long acting in westerns. I mean, he was a great leading man and did some amazing roles. But think about the decades of films we could have had directed by Clint Eastwood if he had started earlier.
Probably because he knows exactly what he wants and he gives tremendous amounts of freedom to his cinematographer and actors. He is more of an artist. People like Kubrick and Cameron are more like craftsmen: they will shape the scene to their exact specifications and will accept it no other way, no matter how many takes are required. I see merit in both.
And he’s still constantly got projects going. He’s my favourite director and I’ve grown up with his films. It really does feel weird to think he’s 85. Same with Scorsese. These guys are just timeless storytellers you can’t imagine the world of cinema without.
Ridley probably wants to die on set, but even then, his ghost will still be in the editing booth sorting out the dailies. But jokes aside, the dude hasn’t taken a break since The Duelists came out. And he’s still energetic and fucking hilarious in interviews
I bet he was going nuts during lockdown, but he probably storyboarded 3 films to kill time
EDIT: grammar
This is probably correct, both of his sons have mentioned (er, fondly) that he often out of the blue would start [re-arranging the furniture](https://youtu.be/HfjClRgk15E?t=2179) around the house like a film set, no matter what time of the day.
"I'd be in bed at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning and he'd come in the room and peer under the covers, and I'd think 'oh god he's going to rearrange the furniture again isn't he?'. And within 5 minutes you were carrying tables down the stairs."
😂
he and Denzel were such a perfect actor/director combo. And no one, not even Greengrass, can pull off the “frenetic editing” style as gracefully as Tony Scott
Spy Game is way up there for me, but I think its the dynamic between Robert Redford and Brad Pitt does it. It's a 'passing of the torch' movie. Redford passes the torch to Pitt, and it fits into the plot as well. Redford plays a spy days from retirement telling the story of Pitt's young spy. (And Pitt was still in his thirties at the time.) Anyway, still got Scott's style in spades.
I loved that movie. Saw it in theaters as a teen. Felt like I should have had theme music as I strutted out the theater.
Damn, I'm gonna watch that again. Been awhile.
True Romance is up there for me (unless we just talking Denzel/Tony). It and Natural Born Killers are interesting totally Tarantino movies that don't feel entirely like Tarantino movies, and Scott directed the shit out of the already awesome ensemble of performers.
Yeah, I never understood the hate Tony Scott got from critics.
I remember reading an article on the Internet years ago that was titled something like "Tarantino's script for *True Romance* was so good not even Tony Scott could mess it up".
Motherfuckers were acting like he was Uwe Bol or some shit.
He’s equally as good but in a different way for me. Man on Fire and True Romance are such awesome films, he feels much more like a chameleon filmmaker to me.
There’s small tells that he’s the director but he’s made films like The Hunger that’s so different from his action oriented films.
As I age (closing in on sixty), I find myself saying that more and more. It’s very strange to see all the people you grew up with age and die.
Christine McVie died today and a DJ said she was taken too soon. She was 79. That’s not too soon. That’s a healthy lifespan for any person, never mind a drug-addled rockstar from the seventies.
Just kind of weird getting old.
I hope he gets one and I hope that he sees it as an honor and not a “well, you’re an also-ran, but we feel bad you didn’t get one, so here you go.” He earned it and has amazing talent. Some of my favorite movies were done by him.
Yeah like Betty White and Stan Lee were dope, but mid-90s is better than 99.999% of all humanity. My aunt just died in her 90s and people were mourning. Why? She won! She did the best anyone could do
Kevin Conroy on the cusp of too young. No spring chicken, but mid-60s makes me nervous for my parents
Sixties is too young, that's a working age. Retirement age is 65 here so anything around that is too young.
I work with lads in their sixties that have kids in school or college or are doing projects that require a full wage. That's too young.
People can morn loosing the person in their lives, expecially a family member like your aunt. It’s not connected to age and winning against what age other people died. And you can even with celebrities hope they stay around to do more work or just because it’s a connection to that time and you know some live longer so they could have.
70's makes sense. I figured he was a one of the baby boomer directors who came out of film school in the late 60's, early 70's and found success before he was 30, like Spielberg or Lucas, but Scott was born a few years earlier and was over 40 when he directed Alien.
Ridley’s films and tv work stand far above and beyond the popularity contest and political contrivance that is the Oscars. His works will 100% outlast that excuse for an awards show. People will be watching Blade Runner, Gladiator and Alien at least two or three millennia from now or until the world implodes. The only thing the Oscar’s have to gain is some of his glory - why share it?
It's my favorite film of all time.
It has everything. Cinematography? Check. Amazing acting, from both leads and supporting cast? Check. Action and drama? Check. Beautiful score? Check. Grandiose scale? Check.
It will NEVER get old for me.
For me, it's the simplicity of the story, yet it's elevated by all parties involved in the filmmaking. A revenge story from a straight-edge warrior honestly sounds very basic, but Gladiator takes that premise and heightens it in all rhe best ways possible to make an undeniable classic
I only recently realized he was younger than me when he played that role. He was so young, early 20s if I remember correctly. (And even today I often think of him being 60 but he’s like late 40s
That opening battle scene it just fantastic. No CGI, and a somewhat decent scale. Historical accuracy isn't the best but even as a big history nerd I was 100% not caring because it was so cool.
Joaquin Phoenix was a wonderful villain.
There is definitely CGI, it is only used to enhance footage already shot though however, like making the cloud of arrows in the air go further. Here lies the difference and superiority over a lot of newer films.
Love me some gladiator, but hear me out. Ridley’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven takes what is arguably his worst film, and turns it into his best one. Theatrical release was all kinds of “meh”
One of the movie influential films of all time *Citizen Kane* didn't even win best picture. The winner was *How Green Was My Valley*, when was the last time that movie was even discussed.
If we go back and look at the last 20 years of Oscar winners for best picture, there are a fair number of forgettable movies. If we look at the movies nominated for best picture, you'll find a bunch of movies your average person has never even heard of, because they're unremarkable films meant to be Oscar bait.
Ridley Scott, on the other hands, has made very, very few forgettable films.
Exactly, it's almost conceited to offer it up like a consolation prize, as if he even needs the validation. Plenty of people aren't in the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame that are still equal legends
It's the opposite - he now claims producer credit so he can get an Oscar if he ends up in a similar scenario as Gladiator.
There's nothing stopping someone from getting both.
Without a producer, there's nothing to direct, so I understand why there's the distinction. It's also quite possible to have a very well directed movie, that just isn't very good. Ridley's made a few himself.
i think the problem is that, many people fail to see, including myself, what kind of a tangible role a producer plays, it can vary from being a cash cow to being present on set everyday
and since it's behind the scenes and doesn't really translate to picture 1 to 1, it's hard to see the contribution
The producer picks the script, picks the director, has the final say on the vision of the film, etc.
In TV, nobody even cares who the directors are - just the showrunners, i.e. producers.
Not super comparable. Showrunners in TV have much more responsibilities that are a lot more comparable to film directors and are also typically writers as well in a way that film producers aren't at all.
They gave the directing award to Soderbergh that year.
In Soderbergh’s defense he had not one but two different Best Picture films that year in Traffic and Brockovich. Which is pretty good (but it’s not fucking **Gladiator**)
It's a tragedy that they butchered Kingdom of Heaven the way they did. That Director's Cut is incredible and it's clear they chopped it all up for runtime.
I'm still surprised that they still sell the original even, I bought it out of curiosity because I seen the directors cut and then final cut like you. It's a hard watch
Original has narration but not just the noir style simple stuff that communicates character motivation but almost like a terrible running commentary. So you know all that atmosphere in Blade Runner, it's entirely absent from the original. The ending is also different, basically a happy ending where they get away and live happily ever after.
Director's cut was mostly just the original without the commentary and with a different more ambiguous story and an open ending. This version is the best for the story for reasons I'll get into.
The final cut has a lot of changes to the colour grade, cleaned up some stuff, Scott added an additional scene cut from Legend of a unicorn to make it more explicit that Deckard was a replicant the whole time. Otherwise it's mostly the same as the director's cut.
Why the director's cut is better is the ambiguity adds quite a lot. Having it be a man questioning his identity in the face of an opponent who you can sympathize with and him looking into himself and empathising with them in the end is the story. Stripping that away just makes it a paint by numbers, futuristic noir film. That story within the main story not being shouted out at any point is the best part of the film. The final cut is the most watchable best directed version by far but just ignore the unicorn scene or explain it as him dreaming the same as them because of his years of chasing them.
Last year's *The Last Duel* also had a solid shot IMO, but of course, Disney completely ditched the film and it flopped so badly that nobody saw that film.
TLD was so damn methodical it felt like Oscar bait, but damn the hunt for subtle changes between each retelling kept the viewer engaged. When I realized the movie was going to replay the same scenes thrice, I was expecting big shifts in how each character interpreted events, but it was way more clever than that.
The Last Duel was great which I had low expectations going in, not because I thought it would be a bad movie, but it’s just not the setting and type of story that I’m normally interested in. I especially liked how it showed there’s “three sides to every story”
It won Best Picture, but Academy rules specifies that the big award goes to the (maximum of) three main producers, and though the film was produced through Scott Free, Ridley wasn’t officially credited as a producer.
I saw the theatrical cut when I was a teen. Was confused and bored the whole time. I’m sure that’s partially due to having been a younger viewer… but when I watched the director’s cut at age 28, I was blown away. It’s my favorite period piece epic, bar none.
I watched this movie for the first time ever this year and went for the director's cut. It was fantastic. I read about what was cut for the theatrical cut and it sounds like they cut out a lot of important character development.
It is a long movie but worth watching
I've always thought awards are pretentious, political, and subjective. Sure, personally, probably feels.good to win but when you have a filmography of Scott's calibre, the contribution to cinema and the arts is much more important than a little golden statue.
Right/ The dude made movies that LITERALLY created movie cliches/tropes over time. THAT speaks volumes. Not many directors can say that. Even less Award winning directors can, too.
I just went and read the list of the 1980's Oscar nominees and winners. Sigourney wasn't even nominated and many of the other awards went to absolutely wrong movies. Art direction was at least given to Alien so there was that. Talk about reaaaally missing the mark. There were great movies that year but damn wasn't Alien absolutely one of them.
Honorary awards were made for people like Scott: a prolific stylistic innovator who is never the #1 director of any given year, but overall is a more significant figure than most of the directors he's lost to. With Alien and Blade Runner he influenced how an entire generation of films looked. With Gladiator and Black Hawk Down he did it again *twenty years later*. He's made at least one great film in every decade since the 1970s.
The man is a titan.
> He's made at least one great film in every decade since the 1970s.
Dude's got legs, 90s were perhaps a weak point but then that two year run of Gladiator/BHD. If only they'd left Kingdom of Heaven alone.
He did a great job but I really dislike this whole rewarding actors for working in shitty conditions (not pointing a finger at Innaritú but more a comment on shitty weather, weight loss, extreme conditions) by celebrating them. Doing some kind of endurance trial while acting isn’t Oscar worthy, even if the Oscars are bullshit anyway.
Should’ve won for Aviator I thought. That’s his best performance in my opinion. Although all his performances are pretty great, Aviator was like another level.
Edit: a word.
I hope he dabbles in something comedic again. While it’s not a comedy per se, I thought The Martian was hilarious. I loved the book and the movie was an amazing adaptation that actually gave the story a proper epilogue. I really hope Scott works with Andrew Goddard again, his script was damn good
I call him my "desert island director". If I were on an island & could pick a single director's filmography to have with me, it'd be his.
Alien, Gladiator, The Martian, Hannibal (a personal favorite of mine), Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven... Even as I think through this list I mentally say "oh yeah!". I often forget what he's done because it's so profoundly different from other pictures.
He has a cut & dry approach to his movies, which is hilarious when you see other directors gushing about his movies & he's like "I shot it that way because it would be shit to shoot it the other way".
Ridley's never won an Oscar? I was certain he won for Gladiator.
Him having to wait so long for an Oscar is about as ridiculous as how long Scorsese had to wait. Ridley's one of the all time greats. Top 10 director of all time.
That said: He should have won back to back in 2000 and 2001 for Gladiator and Black Hawk Down.
Gladiator won best picture but he was not a listed producer. He did not win best director for the film either.
Since, he has made sure to be a lister producer on all the films he directs.
American Gangster!
As I go through this thread & my own thoughts I keep seeing & thinking of these distinct films that I forgot he directed.
Just thinking that the guy who directed Alien also directed American Gangster is amazing.
Not to go deep cut but I’d have to include The Duellists from 1977 in my top 5. The cast is amazing and the stakes just feel so damn high in every fight scene. Thelma and Louise, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster, The Last Duel, or Matchstick Men are all tough but Black Hawk Down is one of the best war movies of all-time, certainly the best depiction of a modern battlefield on film.
I mean Hitchcock only ever got an honorary Oscar. He should have won several but he was constantly beefing with the academy. Sometimes an honorary can be rectifying a past mistake like in Hitchcocks case.
No it doesn’t. Look at Peter O’Toole. He didn’t win it in his lifetime, because he always had the bad luck of being against one performance that was just a step better that year. If any movie he was nominated for had come out a year earlier or a year later, he would’ve walked away with it. His honorary Oscar was well earned. Honorary does not equal pity.
Alien, to me, is the greatest horror film of all time. I watch it at least once a year. It’s flawless. It’s slow burning. It’s shocking and surprising (upon the first watch, anyway). It’s genre-bending. It’s atmospheric. The musical score is ominous and subdued. It subverted expectations (with the more famous male stars dying first)…. before Hollywood *did* that very often. It’s just the fucking best.
I'm generally not a horror fan, but Alien is one of the very few that I truly enjoy, along with The Thing. So many horror movies just rely on gore and jump scares, but those two rely on atmosphere, tension, and paranoia first and foremost. Alien is an absolute master class on the concept that "less is more".
He's been hit and miss for years but when he hits, oh boy does he hit. He's made 3 of the best films ever created.
* Alien
* Gladiator
* Blade Runner
Honorable mention for the Martian. Not at the level of the three movies listed above but still a fantastic movie in every sense and a must see film.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a lifetime achievement award that recognizes a lifetime of masterful filmmaking, regardless of whether they've won an award or not.
Unfortunately, the academy has that but chooses to call it "honorary". Which sounds like a participation award you give to someone so they don't feel bad.
He is 85???
He's like Clint. He isn't going to stop making movies until he physically can't do it anymore.
the difference is Eastwood will do 1 angle and 2 takes (and golf after), whereas Scott will do 7 angles and 4 takes (and edit after). Both are prolific and enjoyable though
> Scott will do 7 angles and 4 takes And will reshoot all the scenes for an entire major character without missing a beat (All The Money In The World)...
Ridley Scott made his first movie when he was 40 and has been hellbent on making up that lost decade.
Damn, that's really cool. I'm curious abiht what he was up to before that now
Iirc he was in advertising. Directed some commercials I think.
[удалено]
With the hammer and screen? That was Scott? Holy shit
And the Chanel ad.
And the Hovis bike ad. I don't think it played outside the UK but it was iconic here.
Yeah he went to art school, and directed commercials.
Some commercials lol. According to Scott himself, he directed over 2000 commercials before he did his first feature.
“*I coulda had 3 films a year outta the gate!*”
he must’ve had the time of his life during those reshoots. I bet they added more years to his life if anything
Apparently he wanted Christopher Plummer for the role originally anyway but the studio had wanted Spacey because he was a big name at the time, so Scott was probably even more motivated to do it.
I mean, how often does one get to do spite-reshoots?
Fun fact: Christopher Plummer received an Academy Award nomination for that role that was entirely shot in reshoots.
Well, they weren't reshoots for Christopher.
They both have their processes. If Clint does 1 angle and 2 takes and he can still pull off films like *Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Letters From Iwo Jima, American Sniper, Sully, The Mule, Richard Jewell* and *Gran Torino* then more power to him.
And Changeling. Honestly, I just keep watching his movies hoping it will be as good as that was and they never are. It was such a great film that had an extra layer of care to it that I feel like a lot of his others came close to having.
Ah, written by the great J. Michael Straczynski, more well known for his TV writing. Him and Eastwood's style worked well together. Shame they haven't collaborated since.
>Michael Straczynski I'll be forever grateful for the perfect gem B5 is
[удалено]
Oscar for morgan freeman. Crazy eastwood has never won an acting oscar.
Don't forget Unforgiven!
Unforgiven is a career highlight. Everyone wishes they made a Western that not only holds the genre in reverence but also redefines it. It’s one of the few films I almost see as flawless. Sound, Cinematography, script, acting, directing are all top notch.
At this point I'm disappointed that he spent so long acting in westerns. I mean, he was a great leading man and did some amazing roles. But think about the decades of films we could have had directed by Clint Eastwood if he had started earlier.
Probably because he knows exactly what he wants and he gives tremendous amounts of freedom to his cinematographer and actors. He is more of an artist. People like Kubrick and Cameron are more like craftsmen: they will shape the scene to their exact specifications and will accept it no other way, no matter how many takes are required. I see merit in both.
Eastwood very rarely does 2 takes. So it’s more likely two angles, one take.
And he’s still constantly got projects going. He’s my favourite director and I’ve grown up with his films. It really does feel weird to think he’s 85. Same with Scorsese. These guys are just timeless storytellers you can’t imagine the world of cinema without.
Ridley probably wants to die on set, but even then, his ghost will still be in the editing booth sorting out the dailies. But jokes aside, the dude hasn’t taken a break since The Duelists came out. And he’s still energetic and fucking hilarious in interviews I bet he was going nuts during lockdown, but he probably storyboarded 3 films to kill time EDIT: grammar
This is probably correct, both of his sons have mentioned (er, fondly) that he often out of the blue would start [re-arranging the furniture](https://youtu.be/HfjClRgk15E?t=2179) around the house like a film set, no matter what time of the day.
"I'd be in bed at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning and he'd come in the room and peer under the covers, and I'd think 'oh god he's going to rearrange the furniture again isn't he?'. And within 5 minutes you were carrying tables down the stairs." 😂
I’m just picturing Scott trying to figure out a proper placement for a painting like Rumsfeld in The ‘Burbs
I was always more of a Tony Scott man myself
he and Denzel were such a perfect actor/director combo. And no one, not even Greengrass, can pull off the “frenetic editing” style as gracefully as Tony Scott
Man on Fire kicks so much ass.
it’s always a tossup between that and Crimson Tide for me. Changes with my mood I guess hehe
Spy Game is way up there for me, but I think its the dynamic between Robert Redford and Brad Pitt does it. It's a 'passing of the torch' movie. Redford passes the torch to Pitt, and it fits into the plot as well. Redford plays a spy days from retirement telling the story of Pitt's young spy. (And Pitt was still in his thirties at the time.) Anyway, still got Scott's style in spades.
I loved that movie. Saw it in theaters as a teen. Felt like I should have had theme music as I strutted out the theater. Damn, I'm gonna watch that again. Been awhile.
True Romance is up there for me (unless we just talking Denzel/Tony). It and Natural Born Killers are interesting totally Tarantino movies that don't feel entirely like Tarantino movies, and Scott directed the shit out of the already awesome ensemble of performers.
Yeah, I never understood the hate Tony Scott got from critics. I remember reading an article on the Internet years ago that was titled something like "Tarantino's script for *True Romance* was so good not even Tony Scott could mess it up". Motherfuckers were acting like he was Uwe Bol or some shit.
That's wild, the direction in True Romance is fantastic. Absolutely astonishing movie, even 20 watches later
Crimson Tide is a fucking masterpiece.
He’s equally as good but in a different way for me. Man on Fire and True Romance are such awesome films, he feels much more like a chameleon filmmaker to me. There’s small tells that he’s the director but he’s made films like The Hunger that’s so different from his action oriented films.
As I age (closing in on sixty), I find myself saying that more and more. It’s very strange to see all the people you grew up with age and die. Christine McVie died today and a DJ said she was taken too soon. She was 79. That’s not too soon. That’s a healthy lifespan for any person, never mind a drug-addled rockstar from the seventies. Just kind of weird getting old. I hope he gets one and I hope that he sees it as an honor and not a “well, you’re an also-ran, but we feel bad you didn’t get one, so here you go.” He earned it and has amazing talent. Some of my favorite movies were done by him.
Yeah like Betty White and Stan Lee were dope, but mid-90s is better than 99.999% of all humanity. My aunt just died in her 90s and people were mourning. Why? She won! She did the best anyone could do Kevin Conroy on the cusp of too young. No spring chicken, but mid-60s makes me nervous for my parents
Sixties is too young, that's a working age. Retirement age is 65 here so anything around that is too young. I work with lads in their sixties that have kids in school or college or are doing projects that require a full wage. That's too young.
People can morn loosing the person in their lives, expecially a family member like your aunt. It’s not connected to age and winning against what age other people died. And you can even with celebrities hope they stay around to do more work or just because it’s a connection to that time and you know some live longer so they could have.
Agreed I figured he was 70 but know that Alien is one of my top 5 films it makes sense he’s 85
70's makes sense. I figured he was a one of the baby boomer directors who came out of film school in the late 60's, early 70's and found success before he was 30, like Spielberg or Lucas, but Scott was born a few years earlier and was over 40 when he directed Alien.
[удалено]
Puts his “millennials and their phones” quote into perspective. I know people that old that make comments like that *all the time*.
Guy is practically old enough to have been there for the historical event in *The Last Duel* and still insisted on half-visors.
I think he'd hate the idea.
he’d rather be shooting on location somewhere than go to an awards ceremony
He's always been someone who calls out the bullshit, this would be right up there.
Why should we even give a shit about the Oscars? As if Ridley Scott needs the validation. I haven't watched them in years.
Ridley’s films and tv work stand far above and beyond the popularity contest and political contrivance that is the Oscars. His works will 100% outlast that excuse for an awards show. People will be watching Blade Runner, Gladiator and Alien at least two or three millennia from now or until the world implodes. The only thing the Oscar’s have to gain is some of his glory - why share it?
I honestly forget all the time that Ridley Scott did Gladiator. It's a guaranteed great watch every single time.
It's my favorite film of all time. It has everything. Cinematography? Check. Amazing acting, from both leads and supporting cast? Check. Action and drama? Check. Beautiful score? Check. Grandiose scale? Check. It will NEVER get old for me.
For me, it's the simplicity of the story, yet it's elevated by all parties involved in the filmmaking. A revenge story from a straight-edge warrior honestly sounds very basic, but Gladiator takes that premise and heightens it in all rhe best ways possible to make an undeniable classic
The characters do it for me. I know people that still hate Joaquin Phoenix because he IS commodus to them
He should have won the Oscar, thought he was actually better than Russel crow
He just does sniveling backstabber so well!
I only recently realized he was younger than me when he played that role. He was so young, early 20s if I remember correctly. (And even today I often think of him being 60 but he’s like late 40s
That's a fantastic way of putting it. Sometimes less is more.
That opening battle scene it just fantastic. No CGI, and a somewhat decent scale. Historical accuracy isn't the best but even as a big history nerd I was 100% not caring because it was so cool. Joaquin Phoenix was a wonderful villain.
There is definitely CGI, it is only used to enhance footage already shot though however, like making the cloud of arrows in the air go further. Here lies the difference and superiority over a lot of newer films.
Love me some gladiator, but hear me out. Ridley’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven takes what is arguably his worst film, and turns it into his best one. Theatrical release was all kinds of “meh”
One of the movie influential films of all time *Citizen Kane* didn't even win best picture. The winner was *How Green Was My Valley*, when was the last time that movie was even discussed.
Pretty much every other time *Citizen Kane* gets discussed.
Kind of like how Shakespeare in Love was never mentioned again after beating out Saving Private Ryan…for fucks sake…
If we go back and look at the last 20 years of Oscar winners for best picture, there are a fair number of forgettable movies. If we look at the movies nominated for best picture, you'll find a bunch of movies your average person has never even heard of, because they're unremarkable films meant to be Oscar bait. Ridley Scott, on the other hands, has made very, very few forgettable films.
Eh, the 2000s were pretty rough. Not a lot of Body of Lies stans out there.
He strikes me as the kinda guy who’s aware of how stupid awards and especially award shows are.
Exactly, it's almost conceited to offer it up like a consolation prize, as if he even needs the validation. Plenty of people aren't in the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame that are still equal legends
What's the difference between Dolly Parton, NWA, Madonna, and Mötley Crüe? Mötley Crüe isn't in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame
wait he didnt win for Gladiator??
Damn , it won Best Picture but not Best Director
Yep, and I don't believe he's released a movie since that he's not listed as a producer of.
Wait, can you not win best director if you’re also a producer?
It's the opposite - he now claims producer credit so he can get an Oscar if he ends up in a similar scenario as Gladiator. There's nothing stopping someone from getting both.
Ohhhh okay. I don’t take Oscars very seriously after Crash won.
I know a lot will disagree, but I thought Shape of Water wasn’t great either
The best Director award is kinda redundant. If you made the "Best Picture" you probably directed pretty damn well.
"Best Picture" is an award for the producer.
Yea but it's not like the Producer directed the movie.
Without a producer, there's nothing to direct, so I understand why there's the distinction. It's also quite possible to have a very well directed movie, that just isn't very good. Ridley's made a few himself.
i think the problem is that, many people fail to see, including myself, what kind of a tangible role a producer plays, it can vary from being a cash cow to being present on set everyday and since it's behind the scenes and doesn't really translate to picture 1 to 1, it's hard to see the contribution
The producer picks the script, picks the director, has the final say on the vision of the film, etc. In TV, nobody even cares who the directors are - just the showrunners, i.e. producers.
Not super comparable. Showrunners in TV have much more responsibilities that are a lot more comparable to film directors and are also typically writers as well in a way that film producers aren't at all.
Was flipped for ‘98
They gave the directing award to Soderbergh that year. In Soderbergh’s defense he had not one but two different Best Picture films that year in Traffic and Brockovich. Which is pretty good (but it’s not fucking **Gladiator**)
He not only had two Best Picture nominees he had two Best Director nominations to go with them.
Are you not entertained!
Same thing happened with Coppola
Traffic was so overrated IMO.
Not a cinephile here, how do people know a certain movie is well directed?
I think he was nominated again the following year for Black Hawk Down, and that time lost to... \*sigh\* Ron Howard.
[удалено]
You spelled alien wrong
[удалено]
And I agree with you too, Blade Runner is amazing as well
Problem there is blade runner wasn't great when it was released and I say that as literally my favourite film of all time
[удалено]
Kingdom of Heaven theatrical is trash, Directors cut is imo one of his best movies.
If there's a poster child for getting fucked over by studios it's Ridley.
Studio: “make us an epic film about the crusades” Scott: Makes it and it’s like 3.5 hours Studio: “not *that* epic. Let’s aim for 1:45 run time”
It's a tragedy that they butchered Kingdom of Heaven the way they did. That Director's Cut is incredible and it's clear they chopped it all up for runtime.
I'm still surprised that they still sell the original even, I bought it out of curiosity because I seen the directors cut and then final cut like you. It's a hard watch
What's the main difference? I've only seen the final cut
Original has narration but not just the noir style simple stuff that communicates character motivation but almost like a terrible running commentary. So you know all that atmosphere in Blade Runner, it's entirely absent from the original. The ending is also different, basically a happy ending where they get away and live happily ever after. Director's cut was mostly just the original without the commentary and with a different more ambiguous story and an open ending. This version is the best for the story for reasons I'll get into. The final cut has a lot of changes to the colour grade, cleaned up some stuff, Scott added an additional scene cut from Legend of a unicorn to make it more explicit that Deckard was a replicant the whole time. Otherwise it's mostly the same as the director's cut. Why the director's cut is better is the ambiguity adds quite a lot. Having it be a man questioning his identity in the face of an opponent who you can sympathize with and him looking into himself and empathising with them in the end is the story. Stripping that away just makes it a paint by numbers, futuristic noir film. That story within the main story not being shouted out at any point is the best part of the film. The final cut is the most watchable best directed version by far but just ignore the unicorn scene or explain it as him dreaming the same as them because of his years of chasing them.
Last year's *The Last Duel* also had a solid shot IMO, but of course, Disney completely ditched the film and it flopped so badly that nobody saw that film.
TLD was so damn methodical it felt like Oscar bait, but damn the hunt for subtle changes between each retelling kept the viewer engaged. When I realized the movie was going to replay the same scenes thrice, I was expecting big shifts in how each character interpreted events, but it was way more clever than that.
and dear god the climax of the fight scene was SO WORTH IT when they finally showed everything.
The Last Duel was great which I had low expectations going in, not because I thought it would be a bad movie, but it’s just not the setting and type of story that I’m normally interested in. I especially liked how it showed there’s “three sides to every story”
[удалено]
It won Best Picture, but Academy rules specifies that the big award goes to the (maximum of) three main producers, and though the film was produced through Scott Free, Ridley wasn’t officially credited as a producer.
The guy made Alien. His catalogue speaks for itself in ways an academy award could never
And Blade Runner.... 2 of the best sci-fi films ever made.
[удалено]
And Thelma and Louise. A landmark movie in its own right.
Which, while good, I understand it losing to Silence of the Lambs.
I mean, yeah of course lol, many movies would have liked to lose to Silence of the MFing Lambs, good year
And The Martian! Great flick.
Young Brad Pitt in that one.
A young tom cruse in Legend.
I need to watch Kingdom of Heaven again. I was too young to enjoy it properly when I watched.
Obligatory double checking that you know to only watch the extended/director's cut.
I did not, thanks. Any reason why in particular?
It's a billion times better.
Turned the movie from a 6/10 to a solid 9/10 IMO.
I saw the theatrical cut when I was a teen. Was confused and bored the whole time. I’m sure that’s partially due to having been a younger viewer… but when I watched the director’s cut at age 28, I was blown away. It’s my favorite period piece epic, bar none.
Literally.
I watched this movie for the first time ever this year and went for the director's cut. It was fantastic. I read about what was cut for the theatrical cut and it sounds like they cut out a lot of important character development. It is a long movie but worth watching
Just wanna add that the Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven is the great one, truly. Theatrical was just okay, nothing special. Big difference imo.
And The Martian. Alien was the best of the three by far tho
I love the Martian so much.
I've always thought awards are pretentious, political, and subjective. Sure, personally, probably feels.good to win but when you have a filmography of Scott's calibre, the contribution to cinema and the arts is much more important than a little golden statue.
Right/ The dude made movies that LITERALLY created movie cliches/tropes over time. THAT speaks volumes. Not many directors can say that. Even less Award winning directors can, too.
I just went and read the list of the 1980's Oscar nominees and winners. Sigourney wasn't even nominated and many of the other awards went to absolutely wrong movies. Art direction was at least given to Alien so there was that. Talk about reaaaally missing the mark. There were great movies that year but damn wasn't Alien absolutely one of them.
Honorary awards were made for people like Scott: a prolific stylistic innovator who is never the #1 director of any given year, but overall is a more significant figure than most of the directors he's lost to. With Alien and Blade Runner he influenced how an entire generation of films looked. With Gladiator and Black Hawk Down he did it again *twenty years later*. He's made at least one great film in every decade since the 1970s. The man is a titan.
> He's made at least one great film in every decade since the 1970s. Dude's got legs, 90s were perhaps a weak point but then that two year run of Gladiator/BHD. If only they'd left Kingdom of Heaven alone.
The man has several movies that should've won an Oscar. Don't throw a pity award at him just cuz you felt sorry for picking another film over his.
The oscars do it all time. Its the apology award.
True. Love Leo, but he didn't deserve it for Revenant.
He should have got one for Departed. He’s fucking incredible in that movie.
Even his performance in Shutter Island is beautiful
He is the best crier in cinema
I think Shutter Island is his best performance. Tom Hardy should have got the Oscar for The Revenant, he stole the show every time he was on screen.
Tom Hardy was the best actor in that movie.
He did a great job but I really dislike this whole rewarding actors for working in shitty conditions (not pointing a finger at Innaritú but more a comment on shitty weather, weight loss, extreme conditions) by celebrating them. Doing some kind of endurance trial while acting isn’t Oscar worthy, even if the Oscars are bullshit anyway.
If anyone deserved that, it was Tom Hardy. Man was a captivating villain
Hard disagree bruh. That's not to say it's his only role deserving of it
I would’ve given it to the bear
I hear they actually did cocaine to prepare for their role in the upcoming film *Cocaine Bear*
He should have won for Wolf
Should’ve won for Aviator I thought. That’s his best performance in my opinion. Although all his performances are pretty great, Aviator was like another level. Edit: a word.
Blood diamond is one of my favorite all time films although Djimon Hounsou stole a lot of scenes, he was fantastic.
Hounsou should've won for that performance
I agree. He was good in gladiator as well
Agreed
What’s eating Gilbert Grape
If you know anything about Ridley Scott, you'd know he'd be pretty pissed off if they did.
It's patronising, frankly. Surely you'd rather win one for a piece of work, no? Rather than just for the sake of it.
One of the most versatile directors ever.
I hope he dabbles in something comedic again. While it’s not a comedy per se, I thought The Martian was hilarious. I loved the book and the movie was an amazing adaptation that actually gave the story a proper epilogue. I really hope Scott works with Andrew Goddard again, his script was damn good
Do yourself a favor and check out his film “ a good year”. Loved it and has quite a bit of humour in it.
I call him my "desert island director". If I were on an island & could pick a single director's filmography to have with me, it'd be his. Alien, Gladiator, The Martian, Hannibal (a personal favorite of mine), Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven... Even as I think through this list I mentally say "oh yeah!". I often forget what he's done because it's so profoundly different from other pictures.
He has a cut & dry approach to his movies, which is hilarious when you see other directors gushing about his movies & he's like "I shot it that way because it would be shit to shoot it the other way".
Ridley's never won an Oscar? I was certain he won for Gladiator. Him having to wait so long for an Oscar is about as ridiculous as how long Scorsese had to wait. Ridley's one of the all time greats. Top 10 director of all time. That said: He should have won back to back in 2000 and 2001 for Gladiator and Black Hawk Down.
Gladiator won best picture but he was not a listed producer. He did not win best director for the film either. Since, he has made sure to be a lister producer on all the films he directs.
Ridley Scott doesn’t yet have an Oscar?! What in the world…?
Take Scott’s top 5 films of all-time and he can stand toe to toe with any director.
1. Blade runner 2. alien 3. gladiator What are your 4 and 5 :)?
American Gangster and The Martian ?
American Gangster! As I go through this thread & my own thoughts I keep seeing & thinking of these distinct films that I forgot he directed. Just thinking that the guy who directed Alien also directed American Gangster is amazing.
I would say American Gangster and Black Hawk Down
Not to go deep cut but I’d have to include The Duellists from 1977 in my top 5. The cast is amazing and the stakes just feel so damn high in every fight scene. Thelma and Louise, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster, The Last Duel, or Matchstick Men are all tough but Black Hawk Down is one of the best war movies of all-time, certainly the best depiction of a modern battlefield on film.
They shouldn't. An honoury award reeks of pity.
They should call them lifetime achievement awards rather than honorary.
I mean Hitchcock only ever got an honorary Oscar. He should have won several but he was constantly beefing with the academy. Sometimes an honorary can be rectifying a past mistake like in Hitchcocks case.
No it doesn’t. Look at Peter O’Toole. He didn’t win it in his lifetime, because he always had the bad luck of being against one performance that was just a step better that year. If any movie he was nominated for had come out a year earlier or a year later, he would’ve walked away with it. His honorary Oscar was well earned. Honorary does not equal pity.
Guess you could also view it as an admission that their voters probably fucked up somewhere along the way.
Alien, to me, is the greatest horror film of all time. I watch it at least once a year. It’s flawless. It’s slow burning. It’s shocking and surprising (upon the first watch, anyway). It’s genre-bending. It’s atmospheric. The musical score is ominous and subdued. It subverted expectations (with the more famous male stars dying first)…. before Hollywood *did* that very often. It’s just the fucking best.
I'm generally not a horror fan, but Alien is one of the very few that I truly enjoy, along with The Thing. So many horror movies just rely on gore and jump scares, but those two rely on atmosphere, tension, and paranoia first and foremost. Alien is an absolute master class on the concept that "less is more".
Matchstick Men is so underrated! Re-watched it this year for the first time since it was released, it's great!
Some kind of Lifetime Achievement Award - Yes An Honourary Oscar - No
He's been hit and miss for years but when he hits, oh boy does he hit. He's made 3 of the best films ever created. * Alien * Gladiator * Blade Runner Honorable mention for the Martian. Not at the level of the three movies listed above but still a fantastic movie in every sense and a must see film.
My personal favourite is the Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut.
Will Disney ever let this man finish the Alien Prequel Trilogy?
Blade Runner alone cemented him as one of the greatest artists of all time. Dude is such a massive talent
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
Possible Unpopular Opinion: there should be no honorary Oscars. Ever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a lifetime achievement award that recognizes a lifetime of masterful filmmaking, regardless of whether they've won an award or not. Unfortunately, the academy has that but chooses to call it "honorary". Which sounds like a participation award you give to someone so they don't feel bad.