Ridley Scott is an empty stylist who fills the frame with all sorts of lighting and design conceits that have no bearing on the material (Blade Runner was an exception - his style was ideal for the material).
If you think Spielberg is a hack what do you think of the opening battle in Gladiator where Ridley ripped off the ‘Saving Private Ryan’ opening?
John Carpenter uses the wide screen frame for seductive compositions that have a real sense of movement whereas Scott’s frame lies there like the disembodied pretty picture it is. He’s not a good storyteller. Gladiator was a dull rehash. Even Roger Ebert disliked it and he’s a sucker for that sort of thing. Legend was just plain old dull. All that ‘working class’ talk about Alien is surface dressing and just doesn’t go very far with the characters on the screen. They really don’t have much personality - even in a pulp context. The daytime soap thing in Aliens maybe right but its better than the complete lack of meaningful character interaction in Alien. The action scenes in Aliens are a model of mounting dread and tension - the last act of Aliens is a landmark of action filmmaking. The first half hour of Terminator 2 is also some kind of genius as far as that sort of thing goes. BTW you do know that the script of Alien was a reworking of the ‘Dark Star’ concept that O’Bannon did with Carpenter right?
What popcorn action films/film makers do you like then?
BTW Do you seriously think Spielberg has a dull visual imagination? LOL Even people who can’t stand his films don’t think that.
That's an assertion that has no more value than the rest of your assertions. It also shows that you really need to know more about film than what Roger Ebert says if you're going to talk in anything but common wisdom (Spielberg is great, Scott is just a visualist.)
If you think Spielberg is a hack what do you think of the opening battle in Gladiator where Ridley ripped off the ‘Saving Private Ryan’ opening?
I direct you to the action scenes in G.I. JANE before you accuse Scott of ripping off Spielberg.
John Carpenter uses the wide screen frame for seductive compositions that have a real sense of movement
Carpenter's imagery is as static as a 70's TV show.
whereas Scott’s frame lies there like the disembodied pretty picture it is.
Whose films have scripts that are better-regarded--John Carpenter or Ridley Scott? ALIEN is taught as a model of Walter Hill's blank-verse method. BLADE RUNNER is a model of telling stories with visuals, and instead of the silly assertion about it being just pictures, the final soliloquy by Rutger Hauer, who wrote some of it, is one of the most memorable of its time--please show me similar moments in the 70's and 80's films of Spielberg and Carpenter that are as well-known. THELMA AND LOUISE is a cultural milestone, whatever its value, and shows how a director can bring visual storytelling to 'talky' material. GLADIATOR was another Oscar-nominee. He has a refreshingly non-PC, non-wimpy approach to these genre films, unlike the sappiness of Cameron and Spielberg.
How many James Cameron movies are known for anything but their action scenes and sappy sentiments? How many Carpenter movies are known as anything but B-movie junkfood?
He’s not a good storyteller. Gladiator was a dull rehash.
You say it is, I say it isn't. See where your simple assertions without any supporting outside view gets us? It was so dull it was one of the biggest hits of the year and won Best Picture.
Even Roger Ebert disliked it and he’s a sucker for that sort of thing.
LOL! Roger Ebert thought DARK CITY was the best picture of its year!
Legend was just plain old dull.<.i>
Yes, and TRUE LIES, ALWAYS, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED were awesome visual and dramatic triumphs. Again, you are in a pissy mood because I don't like what you do, and now you're bashing everything Scott does, but without any kind of point besides saying "You don't like what I like? Well I don't like what YOU like, so there!"
All that ‘working class’ talk about Alien is surface dressing and just doesn’t go very far with the characters on the screen. They really don’t have much personality - even in a pulp context.
Whatever, man. You can keep saying that, but all you're showing is that you either have no idea how ALIEN's characterizations have been massively influential, far, far more than any characters in the films of the directors you worship.
The daytime soap thing in Aliens maybe right but its better than the complete lack of meaningful character interaction in Alien.
Only to people who need syrupy, sappy soap opera types in their movies to hold their hands and tell them how to feel and react. Scott has a much more objective, "cool" approach to character that those who only know one kind of approach can't grasp. Look at THE DUELISTS--it's the perfect example of where he started, with Conrad's more literary approach--it's a good example of how a director can LEARN an approach to character. It's not a perfect film, of course, but it shows from the start he places characters in an environment so we can SEE the character elements, not be told them in Spielbergian gush.
The action scenes in Aliens are a model of mounting dread and tension - the last act of Aliens is a landmark of action filmmaking.
Movie review cliches are again merely assertions, man, they're not laws or rules. If you think those scenes are so great, look at them slowly, shot by shot, as I have in my film studies. There's a lot of flash and cutting, which is fine as far as it goes. But once again you use this term "model" as if using the oldest methods in the book prove one is a good director. There's nothing in ALIENS that hasn't been used on TV action shows forever--Cameron just had bigger sets and louder sound.
The first half hour of Terminator 2 is also some kind of genius as far as that sort of thing goes.<./i>
You're just asserting your opinion. Whatever.
BTW you do know that the script of Alien was a reworking of the ‘Dark Star’ concept that O’Bannon did with Carpenter right?
If you did your research instead of using commonly-held 'wisdom' for a 'gotcha!' you'd know O'Bannon wrote the script while Carpenter directed and contributed very little to the script (O'Bannon also acted, worked on the sets and effects--which Carpenter should have gotten a co-director credit for if things were fair, right?). The two have some common ideas--and?
You do know that ALIENS was a sequel to a Ridley Scott film, which Cameron called a 'perfect' movie, right? ;) What popcorn action films/film makers do you like then?