That's the reason I didn't originally mention Piranha 2, because I've no idea how involved he was in that or Galaxy of Terror, but obviously the fact that he's successful has made the owners of those films attempt to benefit from association. However, films like Titanic and True Lies are terribly written. Titanic is a horribly shallow (if pretty) remake of A Night to Remember, True Lies is substandard Bond with uncomfortable jingoism thrown in. Aliens is Cameron's best film, although I personally find it unengaging and inadequate as a sequel (if it were a standalone film it would be ok - if it were unrelated to A L I E N I might even like it). I find Cameron interesting in terms of the way he has pushed technology but his films always seem to stem from other directors/writers ideas. The dialogue is universally awful, but always features some fanboy pleasing (or is that cringe inducing?) one liners. But those are the sort of films he makes, they have a big fanbase in a certain demographic. That demographic doesn't include me.
What can I say? On the positive side I'll point out his investment in technical film making issues which have advanced certain aspects of film making (I won't blame Cameron for other film makers over reliance on CGI), but he'll never be a favourite director. I find his films overlong (even before the director's cut), overhyped, excessively wasteful - which surprises me as he came from the Roger Corman school where making the best of what you've got was a necessity - and I just can't see why he his held in such esteem. He doesn't make daft sci-fi, there are solid ideas behind them.. sort of, yet the way he does it irritates me. It may just be that it's big and crowd-pleasing and ultimately predictable. I understand why that's appealing, but I want something more 'left field' in cinema.
In other words I can ignore most of his output and it makes no odds to me, but unfortunately Aliens is considered canon to a film I consider an all time classic. Still, there are now a bunch of awful 'official' offspring to A L I E N , so it's just part of bigger picture. I'd rather just leave it with Ripley and Jones floating through space on the Narcissus and forget the direction it took after.
Ridley has certainly made a batch of lacklustre films, but none of them (those that I've seen) irritate me. He has an eclectic mix of stories in his oeuvre. Some of those appeal to me and others don't. But where Ridley is given full reign with his artistic skills the whole experience is far more immersive and potent. His films are more thought provoking, things are suggested without being overstated. He can do quiet intimacy, brooding atmosphere, action and violence with a a sense of maturity. That may be a more English approach, and my preference might simply come down to that.
i guess it's dangerous to suggest that Prometheus is going to be the best sci-fi film since Blade Runner, and maybe give some maturity back to Sci Fi after it's years of being hi-jacked as a juvenile genre, yet the fact that it is Ridley Scott does create a great hope that it will be. It won't be pompous, but we can be pretty sure it will be suspenseful and horrific, and against Ridley's visual sense that should make it something worth waiting for.
Honestly I wouldn't have felt any enthusiasm for Alien 5 in Cameron's hands. But it's all relative. if Cameron had made another sequel it would obviously be better than AVP:R (how could it not be) but I still doubt I would have seen it until it cropped up on TV.
And on relativity, yep, Lucas's prequels were awful. Cameron's films are more focused around one idea and not bogged down in tying up continuity, but still I don't think I'll go out of my way to check out Cameron's offerings again. Just not my bag.
