• tmyakal@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Been saying this for years. If you look at Ridley’s body of work, he’s got many more misses than hits. It’s just that those handful of good ones are really good, and the rest aren’t usually bad so much as completely forgettable.

    Compare that with his brother Tony, who maybe never achieved the same highs, but every single one of his films was memorable and distinct.

    • IWW4@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      For decades I have taken a wait and see approach to Ridley Scott’s films and Ron Howard as well. Howard’s body of work is similar to Scott. A few great ones and lots of no need to bother ones.

      If I see or hear great word of mouth about a Scott or Howard movie I will check it out.

      For a long time the excuse for why Scott’s movies are a mess is the great evil studio interference. I bought into that bullshit for a while until I starting thinking about it.

      Fool me once, shame on you

      Fool me twice, shame on me

      According to legend, studio interference is what sabotage Blade Runner and that was released 46 years ago. At what point is Scott responsible for managing that interference?

      Also beyond that what exactly is the great evil studio that does the interfering?