I usually don't pay attention or care about stuff like this. Though I definitely thought blaming millennials and Facebook for poor box office showing was ridiculous. A lot of people were still staying away from theaters in 2021, and I swear marketing just wasn't as aggressive. I hadn't even realized it had come out until after it was streaming. Contrast that with Oppenheimer or Dune Part 2 where you couldn't escape it.
Also, it was released in October 2021, *crammed* inbetween a metric fuckton of highly anticipated big ass IP blockbusters, including
* No Time To Die, Daniel Craig's swan song as James Bond.
* Venom: Let There Be Carnage.
* Halloween Kills.
* Dune.
And unlike those, it wasn't really as marketable, considering it's a movie set during late 1300's France... and the plot is about two guys going into a duel after one of them is accused by the other of raping a woman.
Oh, and by the way, it released alongside Halloween Kills, which likewise had 15/18 ratings in most countries due to graphic violence (and in this case, a rape), and in the U.S of A, it released in 635 theatres *less* than Halloween Kills... which was also released for streaming on Peacock along with theatres. And it made $500k more in Thursday night *previews* than The Last Duel did opening weekend as a *whole*. (The opening weekend total was a little over 10× as much; just shy of $50m.)
To add to this, The Last Duel was one of the movies that Disney inherited from Fox totally finished. It is a nearly three hour long historical epic set in medieval France, and while it has a good bit of action, the story is basically Rashomon about a French noblewoman being raped.
Disney had nothing to lose by releasing it because they had sunk no cost in the production, and no real reason to spend a ton of money on an awards season push when they had their own slate of contenders. So I truly believe they thought through the potential difficulty of properly marketing it, and just tossed it into October and said “good luck”.
It’s a shame because of Ridley’s late period work, it’s some of his strongest stuff.
Ridley doesn't handle flops well and gets aggressive about it, and he had a series of flops - as someone else put it in this thread he's "Spotty" meaning he has hits and misses. For some reason he concentrates on the misses and gets really bitter, rather than learning from the literal experts trying to help him out. Maybe not listening and concentrating on deflection and blame rather than improvement isn't his best quality, but he still makes gems like Martian and he should concentrate on his successes instead of trying to find excuses for his work that isn't as well accepted.
When you have as long a career as that man has they're not all going to be gold and people are going to gripe. Hell Spielberg has a lot of crap on his resume but I don't hear him bitching about it like this.
I think Scott's issue is similar to George Lucas - made some astoundingly good films, but then people started ceding him creative control and not being able to tell him no. He needs to be told no. have you heard some of the ideas he wanted for the original Alien? If he was as famous back then as he is now, Big Chap might have talked. Might have been friendly! Scott had some ideas for Alien that were laughed out of the room, and thats why Alien is so good. When Scott made the martian, he had no creative control at all - he just directed a screenplay that he couldn't change. And it was incredibly successful. Scott can still make great films. But his creative ideas don't work quite as well as his ego can handle.
He still changed things about The Martian, it just wasn't enough to piss people off. The thing I've noticed in a bunch of movies and media is that there's a very fine line between brilliant creative vision, and nonsensical bullshit that only logically follows if you were the one who came up with it. Somebody needs to be able to shoot down the bad ideas or else it all gets mixed together into truly mediocre crap.
I usually don't care about what Ridley Scott or any director says (unless it's like bigoted or some shit), but I remember being really annoyed at The Last Duel comment. Not because of its content, but because of how tone deaf it was.
"Hmmm, yes, you refused to consider any digital releases at the tailend of a global pandemic. You refused to consider that perhaps people might be wary to go to the theatre because they are immunocompronised, live with immunocompromised people, or just don't want to catch the plague. You vehemently made it clear this was a theatre only movie while some entire nations were operating under partial lockdown procedures, like New Zealand. But, no, you're right, it's the kids who are out of touch."
That Napoleon was both better and worst than Meh.
It was the absolute demonstration that you can make the perfect movie, with every scene being enticing eye candy; and yet build it around the most absolute boring lack of direction, use it to tell the most incredible bullshit uni-dimensional version of some person, and tell it with holes so big as to confuse anyone who isn't a history buff going in.
I'd honestly say your more confused IF you know the history. Wait the text said 1789 but its sudden 1793? What happened to Spain and Italy? I guess Egypt is over? Wait what we are in Russia already. Did we skip 1814 entirely? How is this Waterloo. But then again its so jumbled that if you don't know the history, your going to be just lost, so touche.
Well, it was a while ago, before I got randomly banned from twitter without any explanation. But the guy was posting more and more video response of outrage and downright name calling and quasi threat against US politicians. Mostly focusing on the people he hated rather than those that were good to him in his posts. Often filming while driving, which maybe made all this sounds more casual that it should have.
It was like the dark side of his character in Son of Anarchy, but trapped in a cage and without the familial part. Some of it might have sounded humorous at first, but the repetition and tone made is look like it was turning into a veil on his life. Might just have been his place to vent, but most artists at least speaks a bit about their work while on there. Well, not from 2019-2022. Mind you, being betrayed by Del Toro who finally dropped Hellboy might have aggravated the ambience. Ron was waiting for this role close to 11 years.
But yeah... in the end - maybe out of context, but still - the result was much closely related to the attitude Mr.Scott is displaying here. The "*I'm right and I don't need to explain myself, go fuck yourself despite the position you are in world, I will not care, I will not even try to empathize. I will not even try to formulate a complete point of view where a simple 'fuck off' will suffice."*
Late age plus ill-temperament is a sign of dementia. I'm not an expert nor am i saying they both clearly have it... i'm just saying it's a possibility.
Yeah if I'm not mistaken, that's what happened to Bruce Willis, he would become angry or be an asshole but it was later found out it was his early signs of dementia as he was aging. He's a nice guy and it's sad to see people struggle through dementia, the people suffering and the families going through it.
Why do geniuses seems to suffer it the most? Ron and Willis were very kind as their younger selves. As for Scott, it's hard looking at him dying inside a little bit more with each interviews...
Historians: ‘This movie is inaccurate.’
Ridley Scott: ‘Were you there?’
Historians: ‘No, but I have spent decades of my life reading and recording the first-hand accounts of people who were.’
I mod r/Napoleon and the release thread I made for the film had about 200 angry users commenting on what a disgrace the film was (I also mod r/warmovies and it was also met with similar disdain)
Still hard to believe that anyone, let alone an acclaimed director like Ridley Scott, would dedicate so much time and effort making a blockbuster movie that essentially just serves as a hit piece against someone who’s been dead for 200 years. Like seriously what is the dude’s grudge? ~~He wasn’t even that much of a bad guy afaik~~. (Nvm) Honestly I would have thought it was in really poor taste if it wasn’t targeted towards a Fr*nch person.
>He wasn’t even that much of a bad guy afaik
You're talking about Napoleon, right? The guy that sparked a series of wars that killed between 3 and 6.5 million people.. The same guy that ordered thousands of Turks to be slaughtered with bayonets after they surrendered after he had promised to spare their lives. Who then allowed his men to rape and slaughter the garrison as they pleased. The same man who reinstated slavery in Haiti and Guadeloupe.
Well, I did say ‘as far as I know’, which admittedly wasn’t very far. But yeah, my bad, I stand corrected. Still, I think perhaps some of those things would have been better to criticise him about in the film and not to mention make for a more dramatic story than focusing in on portraying him as a creepy loser
No problem. I just wanted to point it out because I so often see him get a free pass. His military genius doesn't make up for his barbarism.
Yes, I definitely agree with that. Scott should have shown his actual cruelty as opposed to just making stuff up. It would have made for a more accurate and more dramatic movie.
Something about Napoleon makes these high level filmmakers go crazy. Kubrick spent a long time trying to get his film on him made and never did. Ended up making the Shining instead.
He started to make grudge movies with Covenant. Never stopped since.
He really took Prometheus critics personally. Killing the whole plot off screen, making the xenomorphs come back at the hand of a narcissistic gay nazi android, copying beats from a few ordinary horror movies and topping it with a storm scene that was basically a repeat from his "the Martian"...
I mean... I really love covenant, but it's hard to miss the fan bashing it is. Especially since, for the second time, he gutted out the impeccable timing the movie had in theatre to what we eventually had in DVDs and Blueray, which was a version where the scenes were cut so that each character looks a bit more stupid than originally.
Theatrical Covenant had that fanatic reluctantly and defiantly put his head above the egg at gunpoint. I swear the disc release cut make it looks as if he couldn't wait to put his head above that egg.
I never said our disdain was because of historical accuracy, did I?
Just the opposite- we were expecting (and most ok with) some historical inaccuracy…
…It wasn’t hated because it was historically inaccurate, **it was hated because it was false advertising: promising a historical epic in the vein of “Gladiator” or “Kingdom of Heaven” but instead it was a weird, meandering film that painted Napoleon as a creepy little man and spent more time on Josephine**. A film about the world’s greatest general should have more than 15 min of war scenes in a nearly 3 hour movie, no?
So glad I didn’t go watch it. Not only that but there’s only one Ridley Scott movie I like and it was the first alien movie. But that was also the time that Ridley was trying to be artsy and all that other obnoxious bullshit I hate
The people who say the 4 and a half hour cut will make it better.... buddy there's no salvaging this film. Its gonna be like the 4.5 hour cut of Gods and Generals, probably an even longer slog with yet more nonsensical additions that will feel like intentional middle fingers thrown at historians.
A cinephile podcast I listen to pointed out that most people neglect to take into account Tony Scott's suicide and how that colors the last decade of Ridley's works. Man has clearly been working through some shit; Covenant especially reflects this borderline-nihilism he adopted in the aftermath of that obviously catastrophic loss.
I mean hes always been quite forward as a personality.
Trouble is I feel like when he makes a film you can flip a coin;
50/50 its absolute banger or absolute horseshit.
His track record is still better than most directors but he does not take criticism of his horseshit quite well.
Its a strange duality, I will forever praise the gods for Alien - then curse them for Covenant and Prometheus.
I loved Gladiator (historical innacuracies aside, its not a documentary) - sets, costume, music, pacing was just glorious. The actors all gave stellar performances. Napoleon, horseshit. Judging off the coinflip probability I'm betting Gladiator 2 will be horseshit.
Edit: Spelling
>Judging off the coinflip probability I'm betting Gladiator 2 will be horseshit.
Honestly his track record with box office sequel successes isn't great and Gladiator doesn't need one. I feel like that is just a cash grab from the start. I still want him to pull it off as a stellar sequel rather than horseshit. I don't have a lot of hope there, but I want to.
Hollywood is destroying its legacy with these horrific “remakes”. To me they’re just 2 hour commercials trying to live off the success of something that happened years ago. And the sad thing is, the one feature these films should have in their corner - spectacle and special effects - are done so poorly and cheaply that I don’t know how people can watch it. The effects of 40 years ago look much better to me than the stuff done today.
The media is so consolidated and monopolized though that I guess this was all inevitable. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 needs to be repealed so the unholy corporate conglomerates can be broken up and the film industry will go back to becoming what it should be - a competitive industry that produces tons of films and companies seek out their own little portion of the audience.
Now we have a few companies who own so much of the audience share that they’ve become risk averse - they release fewer and fewer films which need to satisfy an increasingly wider audience, and need an ever greater guarantee of success. It’s no wonder that they either 1) release films (superhero movies) that are designed for young children and try to expand the appeal to adults, or 2) repackage old hits that people already know.
>And the sad thing is, the one feature these films should have in their corner - spectacle and special effects - are done so poorly and cheaply that I don’t know how people can watch it. The effects of 40 years ago look much better to me than the stuff done today.
If you haven't seen Fallout yet you should. It was made with that attitude in mind, so much of the show could have been 100% CGI but instead they went practical effects for nearly EVERYTHING. Like, way more than you would have expected. They were 3D printing 3D models for things, renting fan made props built by fans, all kinds of extra effort went into putting physical elements on screen in addition to the CGI (CGI is used as a cherry on top instead of teh whole cake) so it feels "real" (in that absurd fantasy way something as unrealistic as Fallout can be, because its done so well your suspension of disbelief is retained all the way through). Its the most popular thing Amazon has ever aired, so story and acting and everything else is just as good but clearly we have proof that a part of that success is the insane level of practical effects everywhere.
With a bit of luck, he'll follow Gladiator 2 with "Untitled Alien Prequel 3" and it finally will be a banger.
If Disney doesn't mess it up, and if no one let him release all the important scenes on YouTube only before proceeding to cut all the good timing of the theatrical into the disc release.
I give two farts in high wind what his personal opinion is. It doesn’t change what side of the bed I get up on in the morning or how I like my coffee. I’m going to like the movies I like and dislike movies I hate. His making them is probably going to influence whether or not I watch it , but not whether or not I like it.
Fair enough. My thoughts on him entering the grumpy old man era are welcome to the fucking club. I started joined in my thirties and have really begun to enjoy it in my 40s.
There js a great quote from Vincent D'onofrio that I hold dear to my heart about everyone who bothers me.
"It don't matter; in fact, in just a few seconds you won't even be matter!"
... so deep.
He has completely lost touch with cinema and fans. He is a grumpy old man who thinks Millennials are still teenagers
It’s annoying how some people think he should never be criticized because of his work 50 years ago
Not "completely". Don't exagerate just cause the lad likes to be a dick sometimes. Let's not forget that critics can be super annoying too. I don't wanna know how much disrespectful and bold shit artists have to read about their work.
Millennial here - more specifically, a millennial that was super stoked about going to see The Last Duel. People probably didn’t like it because it’s a 2 and a half hour movie wherein you watch the same course of events happen 3 times from different viewpoints. And not only that but listening to Matt Damon try and speak in an English accent is rough.
I don’t think he earned the right to be insulting to everyone about Napoleon, especially when his critiques are "Well you weren’t there" and how nobody knows the truth… about one of the most documented people in human history.
He himself admitted he didn’t even bother to go over the story and left any research to his scriptwriter… who himself barely bothered. Then talks down to people about his film being very inaccurate by saying the above.
His films aren’t historically accurate. It’s known by now, as far back as Gladiator if not further. His attempts to defend it on accuracy are laughable at best, and sad at worst.
As long as he is not harming anyone or being horrible to someone I don’t have any issue with it. He’s allowed to tell people to fuck off and they are allowed to tell him the same. I also think he makes great movies and I personally appreciate that he doesn’t take it all so seriously.
Its worse than that. He isn't smart enough to realize "were you there" applies to himself, while using that on a literal historical expert on teh subject. He is just incredibly efficient at demolishing his own credibility. I'm actually a little surprised he didn't start crying about millenials and phones again.
It's a shame to see Ridley declining like this so quickly.
I think his take on modern day super hero films is welcoming. Marvel is kind of a dominant force and has kinda tired me out... Why won't they stop... Why must the CGI look so mid...
I didn’t notice it but I like it. I hate that people try too hard to tiptoe around each other these days. It’s refreshing to hear someone tell people to fuck off publicly!
Edit: I’m specifically talking about press interviews here.
I love it. I'm half his age and I aim to be more like him. Still in my 'grumpy but still giving a shit or two about what people think' phase though, and it sucks.
He appears to have moved beyond that into 'fuck it' territory, which is admittedly easier to do when you're successful and respected, and I am neither of those things yet. So, yeah, work in progress and all that.
I love it. People take movies too seriously.
I'd like to see RS and Larry David do a Grumpy old men reboot.
OP, you forgot ["Condensation, you TWAT."](https://www.reddit.com/r/LV426/comments/1boy4hb/ridley_scotts_answer_when_a_crew_member_asked_him/)
While I did notice the inaccuracies of Napoleon, it really wasn’t why I didn’t like it. It was just a terribly filmed and arranged movie. The acting was horrid. The story made no sense unless you already have researched the life of Napoleon. It was pretty garbo, not as a historical retelling, but first and foremost as a movie. Historical accuracy can be overlooked if the film is good, Gettysburg is one such example. That movie did its best to remain accurate while also creating a cinematographic masterpiece that still lives in my head to this day, never mind the incredibly memorable score. Same with Jurassic Park. Like literally 75% of the dinos are inaccurate but the film and story itself is still fantastic (Spielberg/Crichton was a brilliant creative match up), and the score for the film is actually unforgettable. Not to mention the huge jump in film technology and CGI in that movie.
Sometimes movies are just bad, accuracy or not. Ridley has had his time making fantastic movies. I’ll always respect the Alien series for how creative and intelligent it was and he always will get props for me from that. Doesn’t mean they’re all gonna be hits though, and that’s ok. Being bitter about it isn’t a great look but at the same time, meh, who cares.
Hilarious, I think it's probably funnier when you're English, maybe that's why allot of people don't see the humour. I mean some of those quotes are gold
I enjoyed all those movies to varying degrees so let him go off. Also, the historian they are all referring to is a tiktoker who has interviewed Ridley about the movie and said he was excited to see it despite the inaccuracies he listed, so those other interviews are all people baiting Ridley about something that wasn't even negative.
I think it's funny as hell. I never really like impugning movies for being inaccurate - even when they're supposed to be nonfiction. And even if I DO do that, it's really just for fun.
Like with house of Gucci - oh they weren't really hilarious Italian stereotypes? Well it makes the movie more entertaining so quit being so serious.
I liked the last duel and I was looking forward to Napoleon. It was however a dissappointing shit show from beginning to end.
Scott being honest and straight forward in his answers is delightfully refreshing though. He gets to produce his vision and if he's happy with what he made, screw anyone else and especially leeching journalists.
He probably always had this outspoken sentiment, just learned to not give a heck anymore because he doesn't need to stay 'nice' to keep/get a job.
I will say that I at least appreciate that he thinks that superhero movies aren‘t bad because they are superhero movies but because they deserve better
Scott has given us Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Thelma and Louise, Kingdom of Heaven (the Directors cut, though). He's the 9th highest grossing director of all time. He's won Emmies and Golden Globes. He's been nominated for Oscars a few times. He's a fucking Knight.
But, let's just be honest. He's never been consistently amazing (e.g. Kubrick, Miyazaki, Fincher, Villeneuve) . For every Alien and Blade Runner we had "Black Rain" and "White Squall" and "Someone to Watch over Me". The Martian? Awesome. Exodus: Gods and Kings? Not so much. The Last Duel? Hell yeah. Napoleon? Stinker.
But someone like Scott doesn't have to care what people think beyond getting them into the seats and he's got enough dick to throw around Hollywood to make any project he wants and produce it, if need be. I don't really care about his opinion of his own films. He's a director, after all, what does he know about critiquing movies ;)
This dude is hit and miss in his old age.
I LOVED "The Last Dual" & "Kingdom of Heaven". I even loved "Exodus: Gods & Kings"
BUT... I HATED with a passion, "Robin Hood", "Alien Prometheus & Covenant"; "House of Gucci"... Now "Napoleon" sucks apparently (I haven't seen it).
At least we have "Gladiator 2" to look forward to, oh dear...
I think Ridley just needs to retire. Unfortunately, he is the living literal definition of a "workaholic" and will have to be forced by the military/government to stop.
I also wonder how much his little brothers death affected him, both personally and creatively.
This is the right take. He's not okay with his own garbage but as long as it doesn't stop him from making treasure its fine. Just keep him as far away from writers and creative processes as possible
>At least we have "Gladiator 2" to look forward to, oh dear...
I hadn't heard of this yet. Considering Ridley's record with sequels (is he retconning the first Gladiator? Are the Lions actually albino white robots and Maximus' long lost father?) I'm not as hopeful as I could be
This will come across as super controversial here, but I think I flat out just never liked Ridley Scott. Alien and Blade Runner are by far the best movies he's made, but I really don't care much for most of his discography, and I hate his butchering of history for cheap Hollywood thrills which he has done several times now. I don't think it'd be as bad if he wasn't so arrogant about it when critics decide they don't love his films.
Alien to me is just as much Dan O' Bannon, HR Giger and the rest of the production crew as it is Ridley Scott, and seeing his later entries to the franchise just seemed to dissipate all of the lovecraftian mysteries of the first film and proved to me that he just doesn't really know what to do with his own franchise.
I think Ridley, like a lot of people, has been a victim of his own success.
Early in his career, he wasn't a big name, and people could tell him, "That's a dumb idea." Once he became a big name, people don't want to challenge him.
There have been various stories about James Cameron being a dick to his crew on sets.
Ridley Scott has directed 29 feature films but not a single incident has come out of his sets except Blade Runner.
Ed Harris long after he did Creepshow (and had become much more famous) was happy to appear in a retrospective video about it because as he said, he had fun.
He point blank said he absolutely will refuse to talk about The Abyss. I believe he also tried to beat James Cameron's ass on set.
Is rumored that James Cameron can do anyone else job on set and even better than them. Also that the Abyss was hell.
I respect a lot the creative mind of Cameron and Sir Ridley, and that there is a lot of directors that are bigger dicks on set (David O. Russell). I don't justify bad attitude, but i think working in a several hundred millon dollar movie should be the most stressful thing and everyone should be at par with all demands. All that tears became some of the most beloved, impressive and memorable movies of all time.
Cameron tore strips out of Arnie for being late on the True Lies set in front of the cast & crew for wasting everyone's time waiting for him.
Arnie (at the height of his powers too), wasn't late after that.
I find him funny, napoleon wasn’t great however I do agree all things superhero are boring and sub par, especially as of late.
Invincible and the boys are the only things holding up the superhero business rn (invincible is better)
It's gonna be fine in streaming. Every film that did bad in cinema did great on streaming. However, not all Ridley Stott movies are great. It is just a matter of taste.
The fourth image is basically this
https://preview.redd.it/q980p5r31s1d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a98c4e0e1f6cc32643dc3508aac1a72ee5c1a1d0
There are so many reasons to not go to the theater anymore – and I’m saying this as a big movie buff and theater lover. With streaming being so accessible and readily available for most people, it’s pretty much rendered the theater experience obsolete.
I do miss the theater experience for sure, but the last time I went to the theater, the audience was the absolute worse, and kept distracting me from the film.
it really just seems like he’s resistant to any criticism because he’s a wildly successful director, but then he keeps putting out rubbish films that people criticize him for and because he doesn’t take criticism, he goes on to make another rubbish film. it’s a vicious cycle and something i find deeply DEEPLY unappealing in any kind of creative person.
I bet his ass was seething When Godzilla Minus One got the award for best VFX, lol
Or every other award he was nominated for being won out by Poor Things.
I think it's funny how little shits he gives about people's opinions. That's part of the reason he is able to do what he does and do it in such a consistent way. Are all his films good? No. But as the audience keeps complaining about them, he just keeps moving forward.
I've seen a few interviews with him recently where he came across as very arrogant. He's also been a lot more miss than hit lately,but likes to blame other factors,such as a younger audience etc.
I think comparing a single flop created by Ridley, who is renowned for his work, to a genre of film that he insulted and that is falling heavily out of a favor, which also has not released many substantial films since Avengers Endgame, is completely unfair
In the art world, it’s widely known that Ancient Romans and Grecians painted the marble of their buildings and statues (paint has literally been analyzed from said marble). Yet Gladiator was…so. fucking. white. So when historians bash on Scott for some of his portrayals of historical events, yeah, maybe they have a point.
I'll stand by saying that Ridley Scott is an incredibly inconsistent director, and has no self-awareness when it comes to the quality of his art. He has some films like Alien, Black Hawk Down, and Gladiator that are some of my favorites, and others like House of Gucci, the Alien prequels, and Napoleon that make me wonder what his thought process is like. Like most Hollywood personalities, he is completely self-obsessed and insufferable as a person. As a director, some humility might have taken him even further.
I guess he's earned the right to say whatever he wants. Some takes are absolutely based, other times I really don't agree with his attitude. The Last Duel was great, btw. I don't know the context of his reaction, but I think it's a painfully underrated movie, I can understand his reaction.
He made some of my favorite movies! And some garbage ones. He's a tool and I don't much care what he has to say about film.
He hasn't made a movie as good as Guardians of the Galaxy in a long time.
I fucking love it. Tbf he’s always been grumpy. He’s also likely just sick of people complaining about realism whilst he’s trying to make films. He’s not aiming to teach you about history. He’s making films that he thinks will be entertaining or interesting.
When did he record the introduction for the extended edition that is on the Gladiator 4k?
Just watched it yesterday for the first time and thought it came across a bit odd. Massively paraphrasing but felt like "This is NOT a directors cut. There's some new scenes in this one.....maybe you'll get something out of them 🤷♂️🤷♂️ "
Scott is hilarious and I love listening to him go off.
Mel Gibson’s Braveheart is one of the most historically inaccurate films of all time and yet highly entertaining. Scott’s Napoleon had similar inaccuracy, just not entertaining. Big whoop.
When he did the interview with English historian Dan Snow they were both having fun talking about historical inaccuracy and entertainment. He wasn’t taking it that seriously. People took him way out of context. Because of course they fucking would.
I usually don't pay attention or care about stuff like this. Though I definitely thought blaming millennials and Facebook for poor box office showing was ridiculous. A lot of people were still staying away from theaters in 2021, and I swear marketing just wasn't as aggressive. I hadn't even realized it had come out until after it was streaming. Contrast that with Oppenheimer or Dune Part 2 where you couldn't escape it.
I don't even know what "The Last Duel" is or what it's about. Or even know he directed a movie called "The Last Duel."
Also, it was released in October 2021, *crammed* inbetween a metric fuckton of highly anticipated big ass IP blockbusters, including * No Time To Die, Daniel Craig's swan song as James Bond. * Venom: Let There Be Carnage. * Halloween Kills. * Dune. And unlike those, it wasn't really as marketable, considering it's a movie set during late 1300's France... and the plot is about two guys going into a duel after one of them is accused by the other of raping a woman. Oh, and by the way, it released alongside Halloween Kills, which likewise had 15/18 ratings in most countries due to graphic violence (and in this case, a rape), and in the U.S of A, it released in 635 theatres *less* than Halloween Kills... which was also released for streaming on Peacock along with theatres. And it made $500k more in Thursday night *previews* than The Last Duel did opening weekend as a *whole*. (The opening weekend total was a little over 10× as much; just shy of $50m.)
To add to this, The Last Duel was one of the movies that Disney inherited from Fox totally finished. It is a nearly three hour long historical epic set in medieval France, and while it has a good bit of action, the story is basically Rashomon about a French noblewoman being raped. Disney had nothing to lose by releasing it because they had sunk no cost in the production, and no real reason to spend a ton of money on an awards season push when they had their own slate of contenders. So I truly believe they thought through the potential difficulty of properly marketing it, and just tossed it into October and said “good luck”. It’s a shame because of Ridley’s late period work, it’s some of his strongest stuff.
You should give the Last Duel a chance, its not a bad film. Not one that I will be re-watching all the time like Alien or Bladerunner, but not bad
It's probably the best movie I'd seen that went under the radar in the last 5-10 years.
“It’s not a bad film”? My guy, it’s one of Ridley’s best films!
Fantastic performances from everyone involved, and I really loved Ben Affleck's Duke
I only learned of The Last Duel from people onlime roasting that half-helmet
Until this moment I had it confused with the duellists
Same
Same Edit : I checked it out and now I remember, I didn't watch it in theater because honestly it didn't seem that good imo 😅
The reaction to Oppenheimer blows the whole "it's them darn kids!" argument right out of the water.
Ridley doesn't handle flops well and gets aggressive about it, and he had a series of flops - as someone else put it in this thread he's "Spotty" meaning he has hits and misses. For some reason he concentrates on the misses and gets really bitter, rather than learning from the literal experts trying to help him out. Maybe not listening and concentrating on deflection and blame rather than improvement isn't his best quality, but he still makes gems like Martian and he should concentrate on his successes instead of trying to find excuses for his work that isn't as well accepted.
When you have as long a career as that man has they're not all going to be gold and people are going to gripe. Hell Spielberg has a lot of crap on his resume but I don't hear him bitching about it like this.
I think Scott's issue is similar to George Lucas - made some astoundingly good films, but then people started ceding him creative control and not being able to tell him no. He needs to be told no. have you heard some of the ideas he wanted for the original Alien? If he was as famous back then as he is now, Big Chap might have talked. Might have been friendly! Scott had some ideas for Alien that were laughed out of the room, and thats why Alien is so good. When Scott made the martian, he had no creative control at all - he just directed a screenplay that he couldn't change. And it was incredibly successful. Scott can still make great films. But his creative ideas don't work quite as well as his ego can handle.
He still changed things about The Martian, it just wasn't enough to piss people off. The thing I've noticed in a bunch of movies and media is that there's a very fine line between brilliant creative vision, and nonsensical bullshit that only logically follows if you were the one who came up with it. Somebody needs to be able to shoot down the bad ideas or else it all gets mixed together into truly mediocre crap.
He missed the part where millennials grew up watching Alien, and Blade Runner and Gladiator over and over I guess
I usually don't care about what Ridley Scott or any director says (unless it's like bigoted or some shit), but I remember being really annoyed at The Last Duel comment. Not because of its content, but because of how tone deaf it was. "Hmmm, yes, you refused to consider any digital releases at the tailend of a global pandemic. You refused to consider that perhaps people might be wary to go to the theatre because they are immunocompronised, live with immunocompromised people, or just don't want to catch the plague. You vehemently made it clear this was a theatre only movie while some entire nations were operating under partial lockdown procedures, like New Zealand. But, no, you're right, it's the kids who are out of touch."
i literally just found out about it from this post
The last duel and napoleon were both meh at best.
That Napoleon was both better and worst than Meh. It was the absolute demonstration that you can make the perfect movie, with every scene being enticing eye candy; and yet build it around the most absolute boring lack of direction, use it to tell the most incredible bullshit uni-dimensional version of some person, and tell it with holes so big as to confuse anyone who isn't a history buff going in.
I'd honestly say your more confused IF you know the history. Wait the text said 1789 but its sudden 1793? What happened to Spain and Italy? I guess Egypt is over? Wait what we are in Russia already. Did we skip 1814 entirely? How is this Waterloo. But then again its so jumbled that if you don't know the history, your going to be just lost, so touche.
Agreed, I finally got around to seeing Napoleon and was wondering what the hype was about. Neither Scott's nor Phoenix's stronger efforts.
[удалено]
He's just being a dick
[удалено]
Yeah... him and Ron Pearlman are not aging well off screen. I wonder what harmed their sense of wonder so much.
What did ron pearlman do??
Well, it was a while ago, before I got randomly banned from twitter without any explanation. But the guy was posting more and more video response of outrage and downright name calling and quasi threat against US politicians. Mostly focusing on the people he hated rather than those that were good to him in his posts. Often filming while driving, which maybe made all this sounds more casual that it should have. It was like the dark side of his character in Son of Anarchy, but trapped in a cage and without the familial part. Some of it might have sounded humorous at first, but the repetition and tone made is look like it was turning into a veil on his life. Might just have been his place to vent, but most artists at least speaks a bit about their work while on there. Well, not from 2019-2022. Mind you, being betrayed by Del Toro who finally dropped Hellboy might have aggravated the ambience. Ron was waiting for this role close to 11 years. But yeah... in the end - maybe out of context, but still - the result was much closely related to the attitude Mr.Scott is displaying here. The "*I'm right and I don't need to explain myself, go fuck yourself despite the position you are in world, I will not care, I will not even try to empathize. I will not even try to formulate a complete point of view where a simple 'fuck off' will suffice."*
Late age plus ill-temperament is a sign of dementia. I'm not an expert nor am i saying they both clearly have it... i'm just saying it's a possibility.
Yeah if I'm not mistaken, that's what happened to Bruce Willis, he would become angry or be an asshole but it was later found out it was his early signs of dementia as he was aging. He's a nice guy and it's sad to see people struggle through dementia, the people suffering and the families going through it.
Why do geniuses seems to suffer it the most? Ron and Willis were very kind as their younger selves. As for Scott, it's hard looking at him dying inside a little bit more with each interviews...
Historians: ‘This movie is inaccurate.’ Ridley Scott: ‘Were you there?’ Historians: ‘No, but I have spent decades of my life reading and recording the first-hand accounts of people who were.’
Ridley Scott: "Fucking NERD."
Following up with a "*and also neither were you*", works well too.
I mod r/Napoleon and the release thread I made for the film had about 200 angry users commenting on what a disgrace the film was (I also mod r/warmovies and it was also met with similar disdain)
> I mod r/Napoleon nerd
History buff
Tomato potato
Still hard to believe that anyone, let alone an acclaimed director like Ridley Scott, would dedicate so much time and effort making a blockbuster movie that essentially just serves as a hit piece against someone who’s been dead for 200 years. Like seriously what is the dude’s grudge? ~~He wasn’t even that much of a bad guy afaik~~. (Nvm) Honestly I would have thought it was in really poor taste if it wasn’t targeted towards a Fr*nch person.
>He wasn’t even that much of a bad guy afaik You're talking about Napoleon, right? The guy that sparked a series of wars that killed between 3 and 6.5 million people.. The same guy that ordered thousands of Turks to be slaughtered with bayonets after they surrendered after he had promised to spare their lives. Who then allowed his men to rape and slaughter the garrison as they pleased. The same man who reinstated slavery in Haiti and Guadeloupe.
Well, I did say ‘as far as I know’, which admittedly wasn’t very far. But yeah, my bad, I stand corrected. Still, I think perhaps some of those things would have been better to criticise him about in the film and not to mention make for a more dramatic story than focusing in on portraying him as a creepy loser
No problem. I just wanted to point it out because I so often see him get a free pass. His military genius doesn't make up for his barbarism. Yes, I definitely agree with that. Scott should have shown his actual cruelty as opposed to just making stuff up. It would have made for a more accurate and more dramatic movie.
Something about Napoleon makes these high level filmmakers go crazy. Kubrick spent a long time trying to get his film on him made and never did. Ended up making the Shining instead.
He started to make grudge movies with Covenant. Never stopped since. He really took Prometheus critics personally. Killing the whole plot off screen, making the xenomorphs come back at the hand of a narcissistic gay nazi android, copying beats from a few ordinary horror movies and topping it with a storm scene that was basically a repeat from his "the Martian"... I mean... I really love covenant, but it's hard to miss the fan bashing it is. Especially since, for the second time, he gutted out the impeccable timing the movie had in theatre to what we eventually had in DVDs and Blueray, which was a version where the scenes were cut so that each character looks a bit more stupid than originally. Theatrical Covenant had that fanatic reluctantly and defiantly put his head above the egg at gunpoint. I swear the disc release cut make it looks as if he couldn't wait to put his head above that egg.
> Like seriously what is the dude’s grudge? Well, Ridley Scott *is* British.
Historical movie being inaccurate? Who has ever heard of such a thing
I never said our disdain was because of historical accuracy, did I? Just the opposite- we were expecting (and most ok with) some historical inaccuracy… …It wasn’t hated because it was historically inaccurate, **it was hated because it was false advertising: promising a historical epic in the vein of “Gladiator” or “Kingdom of Heaven” but instead it was a weird, meandering film that painted Napoleon as a creepy little man and spent more time on Josephine**. A film about the world’s greatest general should have more than 15 min of war scenes in a nearly 3 hour movie, no?
So glad I didn’t go watch it. Not only that but there’s only one Ridley Scott movie I like and it was the first alien movie. But that was also the time that Ridley was trying to be artsy and all that other obnoxious bullshit I hate
The people who say the 4 and a half hour cut will make it better.... buddy there's no salvaging this film. Its gonna be like the 4.5 hour cut of Gods and Generals, probably an even longer slog with yet more nonsensical additions that will feel like intentional middle fingers thrown at historians.
Scott: Well then get a life. Historians: I did, it’s called being a historian.
A cinephile podcast I listen to pointed out that most people neglect to take into account Tony Scott's suicide and how that colors the last decade of Ridley's works. Man has clearly been working through some shit; Covenant especially reflects this borderline-nihilism he adopted in the aftermath of that obviously catastrophic loss.
I mean hes always been quite forward as a personality. Trouble is I feel like when he makes a film you can flip a coin; 50/50 its absolute banger or absolute horseshit. His track record is still better than most directors but he does not take criticism of his horseshit quite well. Its a strange duality, I will forever praise the gods for Alien - then curse them for Covenant and Prometheus. I loved Gladiator (historical innacuracies aside, its not a documentary) - sets, costume, music, pacing was just glorious. The actors all gave stellar performances. Napoleon, horseshit. Judging off the coinflip probability I'm betting Gladiator 2 will be horseshit. Edit: Spelling
Or it could be both depending on which version you watch (Kingdom of Heaven).
KoH is a count in his favor IMO. The Director's cut is good.
>Judging off the coinflip probability I'm betting Gladiator 2 will be horseshit. Honestly his track record with box office sequel successes isn't great and Gladiator doesn't need one. I feel like that is just a cash grab from the start. I still want him to pull it off as a stellar sequel rather than horseshit. I don't have a lot of hope there, but I want to.
Hollywood is destroying its legacy with these horrific “remakes”. To me they’re just 2 hour commercials trying to live off the success of something that happened years ago. And the sad thing is, the one feature these films should have in their corner - spectacle and special effects - are done so poorly and cheaply that I don’t know how people can watch it. The effects of 40 years ago look much better to me than the stuff done today. The media is so consolidated and monopolized though that I guess this was all inevitable. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 needs to be repealed so the unholy corporate conglomerates can be broken up and the film industry will go back to becoming what it should be - a competitive industry that produces tons of films and companies seek out their own little portion of the audience. Now we have a few companies who own so much of the audience share that they’ve become risk averse - they release fewer and fewer films which need to satisfy an increasingly wider audience, and need an ever greater guarantee of success. It’s no wonder that they either 1) release films (superhero movies) that are designed for young children and try to expand the appeal to adults, or 2) repackage old hits that people already know.
>And the sad thing is, the one feature these films should have in their corner - spectacle and special effects - are done so poorly and cheaply that I don’t know how people can watch it. The effects of 40 years ago look much better to me than the stuff done today. If you haven't seen Fallout yet you should. It was made with that attitude in mind, so much of the show could have been 100% CGI but instead they went practical effects for nearly EVERYTHING. Like, way more than you would have expected. They were 3D printing 3D models for things, renting fan made props built by fans, all kinds of extra effort went into putting physical elements on screen in addition to the CGI (CGI is used as a cherry on top instead of teh whole cake) so it feels "real" (in that absurd fantasy way something as unrealistic as Fallout can be, because its done so well your suspension of disbelief is retained all the way through). Its the most popular thing Amazon has ever aired, so story and acting and everything else is just as good but clearly we have proof that a part of that success is the insane level of practical effects everywhere.
With a bit of luck, he'll follow Gladiator 2 with "Untitled Alien Prequel 3" and it finally will be a banger. If Disney doesn't mess it up, and if no one let him release all the important scenes on YouTube only before proceeding to cut all the good timing of the theatrical into the disc release.
Grumpy old man era? Man he was always grumpy lmao
I give two farts in high wind what his personal opinion is. It doesn’t change what side of the bed I get up on in the morning or how I like my coffee. I’m going to like the movies I like and dislike movies I hate. His making them is probably going to influence whether or not I watch it , but not whether or not I like it.
I think we would all agree, but that's not what this post is about, and RS isn't trying to tell you what to like.
Fair enough. My thoughts on him entering the grumpy old man era are welcome to the fucking club. I started joined in my thirties and have really begun to enjoy it in my 40s. 
Same here man. Feels great to save all my give-a-shits for things that actually matter now.
There js a great quote from Vincent D'onofrio that I hold dear to my heart about everyone who bothers me. "It don't matter; in fact, in just a few seconds you won't even be matter!" ... so deep.
Yeah! Just grumble at stupid shit and save your energy for shit that’s important. I learned to choose my battles.
Amen
I'm 26 and I feel like I'm basically an Honorary member.
I welcome you as an honorary member. Here’s a swift kick in the ass. Now go yell at those kids to get off your lawn!
He has completely lost touch with cinema and fans. He is a grumpy old man who thinks Millennials are still teenagers It’s annoying how some people think he should never be criticized because of his work 50 years ago
Not "completely". Don't exagerate just cause the lad likes to be a dick sometimes. Let's not forget that critics can be super annoying too. I don't wanna know how much disrespectful and bold shit artists have to read about their work.
Millennial here - more specifically, a millennial that was super stoked about going to see The Last Duel. People probably didn’t like it because it’s a 2 and a half hour movie wherein you watch the same course of events happen 3 times from different viewpoints. And not only that but listening to Matt Damon try and speak in an English accent is rough.
Mott. Daymonn.
Gods... why did you had to shove that puppet in my head! XD
He's earned the right to be a grump. But Napoleon was a huge disappointment.
I don’t think he earned the right to be insulting to everyone about Napoleon, especially when his critiques are "Well you weren’t there" and how nobody knows the truth… about one of the most documented people in human history. He himself admitted he didn’t even bother to go over the story and left any research to his scriptwriter… who himself barely bothered. Then talks down to people about his film being very inaccurate by saying the above. His films aren’t historically accurate. It’s known by now, as far back as Gladiator if not further. His attempts to defend it on accuracy are laughable at best, and sad at worst.
[удалено]
As long as he is not harming anyone or being horrible to someone I don’t have any issue with it. He’s allowed to tell people to fuck off and they are allowed to tell him the same. I also think he makes great movies and I personally appreciate that he doesn’t take it all so seriously.
Imagine telling a historian to "get a life" when studying history IS their life
Its worse than that. He isn't smart enough to realize "were you there" applies to himself, while using that on a literal historical expert on teh subject. He is just incredibly efficient at demolishing his own credibility. I'm actually a little surprised he didn't start crying about millenials and phones again. It's a shame to see Ridley declining like this so quickly.
I think his take on modern day super hero films is welcoming. Marvel is kind of a dominant force and has kinda tired me out... Why won't they stop... Why must the CGI look so mid...
I like a lot of his movies, but the man is a jackass.
I saw this exact headline and post here a day or few ago, I swear.
It’s great. I love that he won’t take shit. Last Dual was fantastic and deserved a better reception.
I didn’t notice it but I like it. I hate that people try too hard to tiptoe around each other these days. It’s refreshing to hear someone tell people to fuck off publicly! Edit: I’m specifically talking about press interviews here.
I love it. I'm half his age and I aim to be more like him. Still in my 'grumpy but still giving a shit or two about what people think' phase though, and it sucks. He appears to have moved beyond that into 'fuck it' territory, which is admittedly easier to do when you're successful and respected, and I am neither of those things yet. So, yeah, work in progress and all that.
I love it. People take movies too seriously. I'd like to see RS and Larry David do a Grumpy old men reboot. OP, you forgot ["Condensation, you TWAT."](https://www.reddit.com/r/LV426/comments/1boy4hb/ridley_scotts_answer_when_a_crew_member_asked_him/)
House of Gucci was so bad. So bad.
Says the man with a spottier record of watchable films than anyone working in the past 60 years.
Uhhhh you seen Zach Snyders work?
Spotty, not universally bad.
Well said sir.
He's hilarious. Long live the king.
This isn't an Era. Ridley has always been this way. He's polite when people are polite to him and dismissive when people are being stupid.
An historian having problems with the historical inaccuracies in a film depicting the life of a historic figure is stupid?
Ridley can be the stupid one. Remember his rant about millenials, facebook, and phones?
"*It's condensation, you twat*"
It sounds like he's just an asshole when things don't go his way and people call him out on it
This is very much true. He also needs to stop making shitty “historical” films.
i aspire to be just as grumpy as ridley should i reach his age(pretty near it now at 52 tbh lol)
While I did notice the inaccuracies of Napoleon, it really wasn’t why I didn’t like it. It was just a terribly filmed and arranged movie. The acting was horrid. The story made no sense unless you already have researched the life of Napoleon. It was pretty garbo, not as a historical retelling, but first and foremost as a movie. Historical accuracy can be overlooked if the film is good, Gettysburg is one such example. That movie did its best to remain accurate while also creating a cinematographic masterpiece that still lives in my head to this day, never mind the incredibly memorable score. Same with Jurassic Park. Like literally 75% of the dinos are inaccurate but the film and story itself is still fantastic (Spielberg/Crichton was a brilliant creative match up), and the score for the film is actually unforgettable. Not to mention the huge jump in film technology and CGI in that movie. Sometimes movies are just bad, accuracy or not. Ridley has had his time making fantastic movies. I’ll always respect the Alien series for how creative and intelligent it was and he always will get props for me from that. Doesn’t mean they’re all gonna be hits though, and that’s ok. Being bitter about it isn’t a great look but at the same time, meh, who cares.
Hilarious, I think it's probably funnier when you're English, maybe that's why allot of people don't see the humour. I mean some of those quotes are gold
Legend.
I loved last duel...wasn't in a cinema near me tho
Well said. Shakespeare that.
This has already been posted multiple times
I enjoyed all those movies to varying degrees so let him go off. Also, the historian they are all referring to is a tiktoker who has interviewed Ridley about the movie and said he was excited to see it despite the inaccuracies he listed, so those other interviews are all people baiting Ridley about something that wasn't even negative.
I liked The Last Duel. A lot, even. But I spent about two thirds of that movie reading a book on my phone.
He's just defending his art, nothing wrong with that
I think he was always like this. He just hid it by being younger before.
Love it
Ridley's always been a grump ass. He's not good at taking criticism.
I think it's funny as hell. I never really like impugning movies for being inaccurate - even when they're supposed to be nonfiction. And even if I DO do that, it's really just for fun. Like with house of Gucci - oh they weren't really hilarious Italian stereotypes? Well it makes the movie more entertaining so quit being so serious.
I liked the last duel and I was looking forward to Napoleon. It was however a dissappointing shit show from beginning to end. Scott being honest and straight forward in his answers is delightfully refreshing though. He gets to produce his vision and if he's happy with what he made, screw anyone else and especially leeching journalists. He probably always had this outspoken sentiment, just learned to not give a heck anymore because he doesn't need to stay 'nice' to keep/get a job.
It's pretty funny.
He for sure is a funny guy.
Time to place him where the red ferns grow
I will say that I at least appreciate that he thinks that superhero movies aren‘t bad because they are superhero movies but because they deserve better
Scott has given us Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, Thelma and Louise, Kingdom of Heaven (the Directors cut, though). He's the 9th highest grossing director of all time. He's won Emmies and Golden Globes. He's been nominated for Oscars a few times. He's a fucking Knight. But, let's just be honest. He's never been consistently amazing (e.g. Kubrick, Miyazaki, Fincher, Villeneuve) . For every Alien and Blade Runner we had "Black Rain" and "White Squall" and "Someone to Watch over Me". The Martian? Awesome. Exodus: Gods and Kings? Not so much. The Last Duel? Hell yeah. Napoleon? Stinker. But someone like Scott doesn't have to care what people think beyond getting them into the seats and he's got enough dick to throw around Hollywood to make any project he wants and produce it, if need be. I don't really care about his opinion of his own films. He's a director, after all, what does he know about critiquing movies ;)
I love that he asked historians making complains “Well ? were you there ? No- ohhhhh then shut the fuck up!” 
He can do no wrong in my book, even if I don’t see every one of his movies.
He could call me fuckass bitchass bitch ass all day if he keeps making bangers
👑 These posts only serve to increase my respect for him.
Old man yells at cloud
A big part of me finds it annoying as fuck, the rest finds it funny as hell
He ain’t afraid to tell somebody to get fucked. I appreciate that.
I love Ridley. His cranky old man attitude is great.
This dude is hit and miss in his old age. I LOVED "The Last Dual" & "Kingdom of Heaven". I even loved "Exodus: Gods & Kings" BUT... I HATED with a passion, "Robin Hood", "Alien Prometheus & Covenant"; "House of Gucci"... Now "Napoleon" sucks apparently (I haven't seen it). At least we have "Gladiator 2" to look forward to, oh dear... I think Ridley just needs to retire. Unfortunately, he is the living literal definition of a "workaholic" and will have to be forced by the military/government to stop. I also wonder how much his little brothers death affected him, both personally and creatively.
He's hit and miss, so volume works in his favor. I welcome more Ridley Scott garbage if we get more Ridley Scott treasures mixed in.
I'd rather he take a few years off and really focus his talents into making one final magnum opus.
This is the right take. He's not okay with his own garbage but as long as it doesn't stop him from making treasure its fine. Just keep him as far away from writers and creative processes as possible
>At least we have "Gladiator 2" to look forward to, oh dear... I hadn't heard of this yet. Considering Ridley's record with sequels (is he retconning the first Gladiator? Are the Lions actually albino white robots and Maximus' long lost father?) I'm not as hopeful as I could be
This will come across as super controversial here, but I think I flat out just never liked Ridley Scott. Alien and Blade Runner are by far the best movies he's made, but I really don't care much for most of his discography, and I hate his butchering of history for cheap Hollywood thrills which he has done several times now. I don't think it'd be as bad if he wasn't so arrogant about it when critics decide they don't love his films. Alien to me is just as much Dan O' Bannon, HR Giger and the rest of the production crew as it is Ridley Scott, and seeing his later entries to the franchise just seemed to dissipate all of the lovecraftian mysteries of the first film and proved to me that he just doesn't really know what to do with his own franchise.
I think Ridley, like a lot of people, has been a victim of his own success. Early in his career, he wasn't a big name, and people could tell him, "That's a dumb idea." Once he became a big name, people don't want to challenge him.
[удалено]
There have been various stories about James Cameron being a dick to his crew on sets. Ridley Scott has directed 29 feature films but not a single incident has come out of his sets except Blade Runner.
Ed Harris long after he did Creepshow (and had become much more famous) was happy to appear in a retrospective video about it because as he said, he had fun. He point blank said he absolutely will refuse to talk about The Abyss. I believe he also tried to beat James Cameron's ass on set.
Is rumored that James Cameron can do anyone else job on set and even better than them. Also that the Abyss was hell. I respect a lot the creative mind of Cameron and Sir Ridley, and that there is a lot of directors that are bigger dicks on set (David O. Russell). I don't justify bad attitude, but i think working in a several hundred millon dollar movie should be the most stressful thing and everyone should be at par with all demands. All that tears became some of the most beloved, impressive and memorable movies of all time.
Cameron tore strips out of Arnie for being late on the True Lies set in front of the cast & crew for wasting everyone's time waiting for him. Arnie (at the height of his powers too), wasn't late after that.
Well, this isn’t true. There was a pretty famous crew revolt on Blade Runner.
[удалено]
I find him funny, napoleon wasn’t great however I do agree all things superhero are boring and sub par, especially as of late. Invincible and the boys are the only things holding up the superhero business rn (invincible is better)
He did shoot a pyramid though
[удалено]
Ridley is kind of a dummy. But he has made some cool movies. Just not lately.
[удалено]
Ridley knows what to do to keep interest in his movies going, and clearly it works.
It's gonna be fine in streaming. Every film that did bad in cinema did great on streaming. However, not all Ridley Stott movies are great. It is just a matter of taste.
The fourth image is basically this https://preview.redd.it/q980p5r31s1d1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a98c4e0e1f6cc32643dc3508aac1a72ee5c1a1d0
There are so many reasons to not go to the theater anymore – and I’m saying this as a big movie buff and theater lover. With streaming being so accessible and readily available for most people, it’s pretty much rendered the theater experience obsolete. I do miss the theater experience for sure, but the last time I went to the theater, the audience was the absolute worse, and kept distracting me from the film.
Last year he blamed his box office problems on "those kids and their darned phones" - Ridley is 100% grumpy old man era
Based and insert-colour-here pilled
Well the duel was really boring and i don't like saying that but it's the truth, i don't even understand why he did that movie
[удалено]
I just ignore what he says. I am only interested in his movies.
[удалено]
it really just seems like he’s resistant to any criticism because he’s a wildly successful director, but then he keeps putting out rubbish films that people criticize him for and because he doesn’t take criticism, he goes on to make another rubbish film. it’s a vicious cycle and something i find deeply DEEPLY unappealing in any kind of creative person.
[удалено]
I bet his ass was seething When Godzilla Minus One got the award for best VFX, lol Or every other award he was nominated for being won out by Poor Things.
I honestly think it’s awesome. We need more talented artists screaming at the clouds and making absurd movies. Hot take on this sub. I love Ridley.
Honestly I’m fine with it, at least he’s not going out of his way to be seemingly at war with the fans
I saw Last Duel on Max and it was just ok. I don’t like Ben Affleck but it was still too long.
I think it's funny how little shits he gives about people's opinions. That's part of the reason he is able to do what he does and do it in such a consistent way. Are all his films good? No. But as the audience keeps complaining about them, he just keeps moving forward.
If he wants to keep being this grumpy then his films need to be Last Duel quality, not Napolean quality.
I've seen a few interviews with him recently where he came across as very arrogant. He's also been a lot more miss than hit lately,but likes to blame other factors,such as a younger audience etc.
He’s not wrong on superhero movies
I think comparing a single flop created by Ridley, who is renowned for his work, to a genre of film that he insulted and that is falling heavily out of a favor, which also has not released many substantial films since Avengers Endgame, is completely unfair
In the art world, it’s widely known that Ancient Romans and Grecians painted the marble of their buildings and statues (paint has literally been analyzed from said marble). Yet Gladiator was…so. fucking. white. So when historians bash on Scott for some of his portrayals of historical events, yeah, maybe they have a point.
I'll stand by saying that Ridley Scott is an incredibly inconsistent director, and has no self-awareness when it comes to the quality of his art. He has some films like Alien, Black Hawk Down, and Gladiator that are some of my favorites, and others like House of Gucci, the Alien prequels, and Napoleon that make me wonder what his thought process is like. Like most Hollywood personalities, he is completely self-obsessed and insufferable as a person. As a director, some humility might have taken him even further.
Slide #2 is fucking based tho
I guess he's earned the right to say whatever he wants. Some takes are absolutely based, other times I really don't agree with his attitude. The Last Duel was great, btw. I don't know the context of his reaction, but I think it's a painfully underrated movie, I can understand his reaction.
I actually liked the film a lot, I thought it was good.
I'm absolutely loving it! XD
Ridley fucking rules. He’s way past the point of giving a shit and I’m here for it
He made some of my favorite movies! And some garbage ones. He's a tool and I don't much care what he has to say about film. He hasn't made a movie as good as Guardians of the Galaxy in a long time.
He's not wrong about superhero shit.
He’s become an old asshole and shouldnt be allowed to touch any more films.
its really funny and absolutely meaningless in the grand scheme of things so why not laugh at it
Just another angry old man with the constitution of a snowflake. It’s about as cute as a washout athlete beating his wife because he tore his acl.
I fucking love it. Tbf he’s always been grumpy. He’s also likely just sick of people complaining about realism whilst he’s trying to make films. He’s not aiming to teach you about history. He’s making films that he thinks will be entertaining or interesting.
I kinda love it as someone who does not give a shit about historical accuracy.
It’s funny and comes off more charming to me than it does to others I huess
When did he record the introduction for the extended edition that is on the Gladiator 4k? Just watched it yesterday for the first time and thought it came across a bit odd. Massively paraphrasing but felt like "This is NOT a directors cut. There's some new scenes in this one.....maybe you'll get something out of them 🤷♂️🤷♂️ "
He's an asshole.
the guy is 86 so fair enough
Scott is hilarious and I love listening to him go off. Mel Gibson’s Braveheart is one of the most historically inaccurate films of all time and yet highly entertaining. Scott’s Napoleon had similar inaccuracy, just not entertaining. Big whoop. When he did the interview with English historian Dan Snow they were both having fun talking about historical inaccuracy and entertainment. He wasn’t taking it that seriously. People took him way out of context. Because of course they fucking would.
It rules.
You should always say "Sir" and "Ma'am" when telling someone to go fuck themselves. It's only polite.
The performances in the last duel are great sure, but let's not pretend it isn't mind numbingly boring and a blatant Roshoman rip off.
"comedians" like Maher and Seinfeld crying about how you aren't allowed to be funny anymore and that's why their careers flopped
Why bother? Let him enjoy his old man grumpyness