Latest News

Post Comment
Comments: 197
« Newer Comments 1234 Older Comments »
  1. StrangeShape
    Im not saying he originated them, I was saying that he does have artistic eye and cares and thinks about that stuff

    Edit: I see now how my sentence couldve been read like that, I cleared it up
  2. Gash

    Doesnt change anything I said tho, he IS an artist not some model builder/technician as you two claim.

    I was quoting film critic Barry Norman, and said as much, I hardly think it was an insult to Cameron to call him a master craftsmen. I think you're taking the term artist too literally, I'm not saying Cameron doesn't have art and design ability.

    And I said, I just gave examples of his creative lightning techniques, didnt list them all. And what he took from Scott is the backlight and blue night. The wetting of the streets comes from Cameron for example.

    I read of that technique in the making of Blade Runner, and I'd be surprised if it hadn't been used years before that by the likes of Carol Reed.

    Same with building grated floors specifically to light from under them to create interesting light, theres ton of it

    A technique I don't think could be attributed to Cameron, lighting through gratings and latticework can be traced back through the history of cinema - whether it's floors, ceiling or walls.
  3. ThisBethesdaSea
     I didn't claim anything like that. I have a lot of respect for Cameron and his worthy abilities. I've been nearly alone in my opinion of not wanting to pit director against director. They are both worthy. I think one has a bit more of an effect in the world of filmed science fiction, and the other known for his technical prowess. They are equals.

    Case closed?
  4. StrangeShape
    Cameron cited Ridley for his influence over the use of back lighting, and lighting in general. I've read this in two interviews with Cameron.

    I know. Doesnt change anything I said tho, he IS an artist not some model builder/technician as you two claim. And I said, I just gave examples of his creative lightning techniques, didnt list them all. And what he took from Scott is the backlight and blue night, but it doesnt matter who originated what, who first came up with 'less is more' etc etc, doesnt matter who invented the wheel. The point is that someone cares to use that wheel and sees where it can be used. The wetting of the streets was Cameron's idea for example, it was his idea to do it, his eye to see it, his will to spent time sprinkling the street. Same with building grated floors specifically to light from under them to create interesting light, theres ton of such stuff. ts an eye and a mind of an artist

    Edited to clear up a misguiding sentence
  5. StrangeShape
    Interesting to claim Cameron is not an artist considering that Cameron solely designed all the vehicles and the endoskeleton from his terminator movies and the alien queen and thanator. Hes also the guy who likes to convey usually subtle symbolism through visuals a lot in his movies. For example, note the subliminal lighting on T-800 during Hasta La Vista moment. To quote the text commentary on the DVD: "Since it was a very human moment for T-800, his damaged, mechanical side is in the shadow. Also, the mechanical part is lightly lit with cold blue, and the human side with warm orange. That symbolized the humanity that was prevailing in him at the time, and the moment when he truly became as close to the human character as possible. It was a so called fire and ice motif, expanding on the theme of human and machine interfacing."
    http://www.dvdvision.fr/jco/40.jpg

    Thats something Ive never caught myself, only found out from DVD extras. And there are million examples like that, even with the designs conveying symbolism as well. And people like Verhoeven and Blomkamp both studied and were tremendously affected and inspired by the first terminator. Just to name the two

    Not to mention Cameron's use of backlight which creates surreal images and his creative use of light in general. For example, in T2 the streets at night were sprinkled with water to "provide interesting reflecting lights"
  6. Gash

    No one said he isn't a big name, just that he isn't the most influential or most important director of all time like Gash was claiming.

    It wasn't a claim, just a statement based on personal experience. And Hitchcock is the most influential director IMO. I have heard more directors claim Scott to be an influence than I have heard the same of Cameron. I'm not saying Cameron hasn't inspired people or developed groundbreaking technology but in terms of overall influence I'd regard Scott as more of a director's director and therefore held in higher standing. Partly because of his eclectic mix of films, whether they have been financially successful or not. All these things have made him a more interesting film maker. Personal taste. I'd accept what the film critic Barry Norman says: Cameron is a master craftsmen, Scott is an artist.
  7. Xenomrph
    I can't believe fanbois are bending over backwards to argue that Scott isn't a big name.  Self hatered maybe?  Blade Runner I think is one of the most revered films among people working in the industry now.  It's basiscally Christopher Nolan's Bible.  I don't know why people act like you have to have 20 movies of equal influence or something to be significant.
    No one said he isn't a big name, just that he isn't the most influential or most important director of all time like Gash was claiming.
  8. StrangeShape
    Naturally. But the vast majority of game changers were indeed big bo successes (Jaws, Star Wars, Alien, Batman, T2, JP etc), which goes against this current weird way of thinking that something must be either a masterpiece or a hit, never together

    It goes both ways of course and I sure dont mean to say a masterpice must be a hit
  9. GhidraX
    financial success does not equate to artistic success. Some of the worst films have made the most money. Star Wars Prequels anyone?

    Of course, but you didnt say financial success. You said career success

    Financial success matters more in context of when it occurred.  Similarly, Citizen Kane I think lost money.  But I'm sure there's a lot of movies that came out that year that made more money that are no longer as influential.  This is also the reason that sequels to "sleeper hits" that flopped or almost flopped decades later can be big financial successes.
  10. StrangeShape
    Some how, people relate box office numbers to career success. It's a simpletons equation.

    BO success does equal career success, just like position and $ in any career equal success. But its impact that people are talking about, and I agree with those who say its ridiculous to claim Scott is the most influential and biggest director ever. Imo Spielberg is because hes the most recognizable name and changed cinema so many times with Jaws, Close Encounters, ET and JP. Anyway what I find ridiculous is that civil war and silly amaturish venom spewing towards either Cameron or Scott to prove something. Both are terrific visionairies and made legendary pictures that got selected for preservation, both are geniuses and none of them is even close to Michael Bay's dumb popcorn entertainment so people who bash one or another, stop embarassing yourself
  11. ThisBethesdaSea
    Well said Ghidrax....

    the only reason why Scott gets so much flack is because He hasn't made it to the stratosphere of box office billions form the films he's made. Some how, people relate box office numbers to career success. It's a simpletons equation.
  12. GhidraX
    I can't believe fanbois are bending over backwards to argue that Scott isn't a big name.  Self hatered maybe?  Blade Runner I think is one of the most revered films among people working in the industry now.  It's basiscally Christopher Nolan's Bible.  I don't know why people act like you have to have 20 movies of equal influence or something to be significant.
  13. St_Eddie
    I think he wants to rip the AVP movies so bad but holds back for some reason :D

    That reason being that he is affiliated to 20th Century Fox via Prometheus; It's simply politics.  Sir Scott has made enough vague comments regarding the AVP movies as to be able to read between the lines and see what he really thinks about them (i.e. they're shit).

    Anyway, as for the vehicle; I'm not overly keen on the aesthetics of it but I also don't hate it, so I guess I'm indifferent.  As others have said, those gold wheels probably won't look quite so lurid on film.
  14. Gash
    Duellists,
    Oh, come off it. Who the hell ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?

    Dunno, I'm talking about good films, not measuring them by box office receipt. I saw The Duellists around the same time I saw A L I E N. Perhaps I'm only discussing this with Sci Fi fans?


    How about Legend, GI Jane, or 1492? They were all trashed.

    Indeed, but of all fantasy/sword and sorcery fare made up to that point I'd take Legend over other efforts. Not seen GI Jane, doesn't interest me, 1492 was certainly the best of the Columbus films, but then I wasn't asked to list every Scott film, just those that proved his credentials as worthy of tackling Prometheus.

    quote] There are others worthy of note
    Not really, no. [/quote]

    The above mentioned Legend is worthy of note no matter what you think of Cruise. It is admittedly a visual feast rather than a great film but it's still noteworthy. Someone to Watch Over Me and Black Rain are decent thrillers that I would not find a chore to watch.

    Quote
    And yes, blow me, I do think Ridley Scott is probably one of the most significant directors of our era.
    How is he significant? How are any of them? Dude makes some entertaining films. That's it.

    It a question of reference point I suppose. I work in the illustration and graphic design industry with involvement with TV and film in the UK, and I have done for some years, Ridley Scott's influence is more prevalent than any other visualist IMHO. It's sometimes a question of deliberately trying to find a design route that doesn't look like it is pilferred off of Scott (or trying to convince a director/producer not to attempt to copy some aspect of his output - in a poorer way).
  15. Gash
    It isn't a low-blow when we're talking about something the director is working on now, so we use his contemporary history as a filmmaker as a benchmark for whether or not he might mess up. It at least makes more logical sense than "Well he made these great moves decades ago that are still hallmark films of the genre, so there's no possible way he could mess up today".

    Whoosh!!

    Who are you quoting there btw?
  16. icedog97
    So...anyway...

    The vehicles look interesting and the car/rover thing will probably appear much more subdued in the film. Stage lighting makes a world of difference...just think of the original ALIEN...most people think the creature is black/green and silver.

    Quick note on the director tangent...Scott has done some decent work (more recently) and has been influential for sure. In terms of this movie, I can't imagine a better director to try and bring back the same atmosphere that the original film created. I'm pretty confident this film will turn out well. I think his approach is good and his legacy, to some extent, is at stake. All those things should lead to something better than average (one would think).
  17. St_Eddie
    Duellists,
    Oh, come off it. Who the hell ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?

    Hmph, I happen to adore The Duellists and I regularly talk about it with people whenever Ridley Scott comes up in conversation.  Having said that, I'm aware that it's hardly a well known film.  It is a critically respected film though.  Anyway, I just wanted to say that; I have zero interest in joining this Scott Vs Cameron debate, as it's ridiculous and ultimately a fruitless conversation to pursue.

    That is all.
  18. Valaquen
    Duellists,
    Oh, come off it. Who the hell ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?
    I think The Duellists was a fantastic film, really fantastic, but you're right - had I never investigated Scott's work, then I'd have never, ever, have come across it.

    I can understand significance on certain levels - 'Alien' introduced the "female protagonist" idea
    In a sci-fi context, yes. In movies? Hell naw! There was Laurie Strode the year before, and countless other female survivor characters. Blaxploitation films had female Dirty Harry-esque characters, long before Alien. But Ripley is very popular, yes. It's funny that according to David Giler, a lot of the initial feedback came saying that audiences wouldn've preferred that Ripley was a man!  :laugh:
  19. StrangeShape
    Steven Spielberg is the name everyone knows, even a random person from the streets so thats all I have to add here. Not Ridley Scott. So I think Spielberg's the most influential in the genre and most known

    Anyway, one great thing that came out of this thread is that it made me watch Blade Runner again
  20. Xenomrph
    It isn't a low-blow when we're talking about something the director is working on now, so we use his contemporary history as a filmmaker as a benchmark for whether or not he might mess up. It at least makes more logical sense than "Well he made these great moves decades ago that are still hallmark films of the genre, so there's no possible way he could mess up today".
  21. ThisBethesdaSea
    What's interesting to me is that instead of people responding with balance, Ridley is being seemingly bashed because some of his films aren't critically acclaimed and some are? Thelma and Louise is a great example of Ridleys non science fiction work that fared well in the eyes of critics many years later.

    I would prefer that Scott hasn't been king blockbuster film, and that he's had missteps and fumblings, it keeps him grounded and his art visceral. I AM NOT saying that because the others are generally lauded that their work makes loads of money that they are worse. I am merely stating that using an artists less successful work against him is a low blow. I expect more from people then that.
  22. Xenomrph
    That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.
    How many times does Guts need to mention more recent movies for you to acknowledge he isn't just talking Alien and Blade Runner? :-\
    Because I think he's fixating on those two, and if he is I can understand why because they *are* significant. :P
  23. SiL
    That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.
    How many times does Guts need to mention more recent movies for you to acknowledge he isn't just talking Alien and Blade Runner? :-\
  24. Xenomrph
    Quote
    How is he significant? How are any of them? Dude makes some entertaining films. That's it.
    I can understand significance on certain levels - 'Alien' introduced the "female protagonist" idea, even though 'Aliens' turned it into the "female action-hero" idea. 'Alien' bucked a lot of "haunted house" horror movie cliches in interesting and memorable ways. The Alien design was unforgettable. Blade Runner has an iconic neo-noir visual style, and the soundtrack by Vangelis is fantastic and really memorable.

    But beyond 'Alien' and 'Blade Runner', I wouldn't say any of his movies were revolutionary or iconic. They didn't push the boundaries of technology or visuals, they didn't re-shape the way we view certain character archetypes, they're all largely "safe" movies and frankly some of them sucked.

    That isn't to say he can't make good movies anymore or that Prometheus doesn't have the potential to be fantastic, it's that heralding Ridley Scott as the finest director of our time because of two movies he did 30 years ago is a massive disservice to all the other directors who have contributed to cinema since 1982.
  25. SiL
    Duellists,
    Oh, come off it. Who the hell ever actually mentions that movie? How many people even know about it in the first place outside of fans of his work?

    Quote
    Not all the above films are to my taste but all have been successful, critically or financially and all have more merit than most summer blockbusters.
    Fantastic. How about Legend, GI Jane, or 1492? They were all trashed.

    Quote
    There are others worthy of note
    Not really, no.

    Quote
    And yes, blow me, I do think Ridley Scott is probably one of the most significant directors of our era.
    How is he significant? How are any of them? Dude makes some entertaining films. That's it.
  26. Xenomrph
    Quote
    So this is not 'hero' worship, it's pointing out that Ridley's skills are there in spades when he pulls out all the stops.
    I guess he forgot to do that for about half his movies.

    Quote
    Yes I really must go and watch The Dark Knight, or Hellboy, or The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, or other films I have little interest in.
    All of those movies (and Pan's Labyrinth, and The Prestige, and Inception, and Brazil) have been widely regarded as visual spectacles.

    Hell, even SiL, who is a huge 'Alien' fan and doesn't particularly like 'Aliens' as much as others (as far as I know) seems to think you're blowing Ridley Scott's reputation a bit out of proportion. Again, no one thinks he's a bad director, they're just pointing out that:

    1. he hasn't done sci-fi for 30 years

    2. his percentage of good to bad, especially in the last few years, is spotty at best

    What he's done in the past doesn't really have any bearing on how he's going to perform now, decades later. Given his recent track record I'd say there's fair reason for people to be cautiously optimistic. Lightning could strike twice and we could get 'Alien', or we could end up with 'Body of Lies', or 'Robin Hood'. It's too early to tell, and saying "it's going to be good because it's Ridley Scott" is a little short-sighted.
    There were plenty of people disappointed by 'Avatar' because they were expecting something like 'Terminator 2' or 'Aliens', and instead they got something much tamer. There were people who eagerly anticipated the Star Wars prequels, because holy shit it's Star Wars, how could George Lucas possibly f**k it up?

    Welp. :(
  27. Gash
    Duellists, A L I E N, Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster.

    Not all the above films are to my taste but all have been successful, critically or financially and all have more merit than most summer blockbusters. There are others worthy of note but he has been more prolific in the last fifteen years in directing and producing and there have been periods of lacklustre films throughout. So this is not 'hero' worship, it's pointing out that Ridley's skills are there in spades when he pulls out all the stops. And that is not something that is long distant, it is something that has occurred regularly throughout his career. I think this whole ludicrous debate started because someone suggested Ridley might be able to match Cameron, something which to me goes without saying. I'm afraid I probably over reacted and took the implication that Cameron might be a more worthy torch bearer for anything related to ALIEN as a snub to the orignators, chiefly Dan O'B, HR Giger, and Scott, who did the difficult work of creating everything. I don't hate Cameron, I think he has strengths, but I think he's built them on the shoulders of giants and flourished in his own way. However I will never find a lot to like in the 1986 sequel, it simply disappoints me - not because of what it is - but because of what it isn't.

    And yes, blow me, I do think Ridley Scott is probably one of the most significant directors of our era. But heaven forfend that I should state as much, and fail to rate as highly the obvious talents of some of the other directors trotting out their wares. Pardon me for finding depth where there is none. Yes I really must go and watch The Dark Knight, or Hellboy, or The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, or other films I have little interest in.
  28. Gash
    Making claims that Ridley Scott is more important and more influential than any other director today strikes me as incredibly bizarre and disconnected from reality.

    Given some of the examples you've cited I really don't care what it strikes you as.

    It's one thing to like 'Alien', but to say he's that important today (let alone the most important), when he hasn't made a sci-fi or horror movie in 30 years, and his last few movies have been mediocre at best, doesn't make sense.

    Who cares about sci-fi or horror? You seem to think Ridley's known for four films. Enough said.
  29. nendo
    It could be something else entirely.

    It doesn't make sense to me to build such a massive prop for something that could be quite easily CGI'd for half the cost.

    Not true. Cost of on set props and adding it in cgi later on a large movie like this works out to be the same.

    You say its half the price or cheaper but what's your source? because if your just jumping onto the old bang waggon of oh cgi is half the cost then yes you may be right. But only if you want a half arsed job that doesn't look real

    To get it to look perfect in cgi takes alot of resources. Could (on this High resolution) take longer to finaly render the shot than it would be to build it

    If you want high end graphics which scott will want then its going to be easier, better to build part of the piece that in close ups, like the official pic, will be seen then add extentions onto it when needed. that cuts down the amount of work a model maker, animator, texture artist, lighting specialist would need to spend on that shot. Saving money and production time
« Newer Comments 1234 Older Comments »
Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS Feed