I remember citing critical opinion and you said that it didn’t matter what other people thought. Gladiator contained nothing new and had no sign of a personal vision. It was cliche-addled as was American Gangster to take two of his most ‘enduring’ films apart from Alien and BR. That was my point about Ridley Scott...that his images don’t communicate anything but a design aesthetic. As opposed to say John Ford who uses the sunset or the horizon to suggest the passing of a way of life.
I bring it up because YOU are the one who brought Ebert and the regard in which E.T. is held.
Gladiator contained nothing new and had no sign of a personal vision. It was cliche-addled
If you can show me another gladiator movie with that look, with a score based on Viennes waltzes, with that level of screenwriting, with such rich visuals, such good acting, excellent art direction, go right ahead.
You keep focusing on GLADIATOR for some reason. I think it's a good popcorn movie, that's it. I don't know how this became about GLADIATOR, except that you brought it in to claim Scott somehow ripped off the awful, smarmy SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, which I have demonstrated is drawn visually from Scott's own previously-exhibited use of the methods he used there.
as was American Gangster to take two of his most ‘enduring’ films apart from Alien and BR.
Scott challenges himself by going into different areas, unlike Carpenter and Cameron and Spielberg, who in Spielberg's case may go into different genres but can't shake his childishness. I don't know why of all his films you've now chosen AMERICAN GANGSTER, except that you just have to bash Scott because I don't like your pet directors.
That was my point about Ridley Scott...that his images don’t communicate anything but a design aesthetic.
You keep saying that. I keep pointing out examples of how that is demonstrably false, which you ignore, and then you say it again. I get it--you can't understand visual storytelling that isn't based on low-angle = Bad Guy basics. I get it. Move on.
,i> As opposed to say John Ford who uses the sunset or the horizon to suggest the passing of a way of life.
Carpenter, Spielberg and Cameron can't live up to that standard, yet you use that as a means to bash Scott.
You're just arguing to argue, and I have now posted responses to every point you've made. Instead of then responding to those answers, you just change the subject--now we're on AMERICAN GANGSTER, which I've never mentioned as proof of anything.
I'm sorry I think those three directors are boring, bland and empty. But my standards are a lot higher than that. Sorry that seems to bother you. But you can deny his talents, achievements and massive influence on filmmaking all you like, all it comes across as is irritation that someone doesn't make bland, boring, empty TV-mindset junk. Your basic point--that he is a 'boring pictorialist'--is a cliche easily brushed aside by the fact that he began as a commercial maker, and his own company has made some of the landmark commercials which are nothing BUT communication. His 1984 commercial has more visual storytelling than all of Carpenter; his ALIEN is a bigger influence than all of Cameron; his BLADE RUNNER has more adult handling of the issue of what makes one human than all of Spielberg. That's how I see it. You don't. I get it. Repeating your hate of GLADIATOR again isn't going to change my mind. Pointing out the boring, plain, unexciting, TV-inspired (it bears repeating that Spielberg has said himself he was into TV more than moviegoing) cotton candy isn't going to convince you that these three are any less than great. So I think we're done. At least I am.