Ridley Scott calls superhero movies “boring” but says he’s made three great ones
The Alien director eloquently states that when it comes to superhero films, "they’re fucking boring as shit"
Aux News ridley scott
Ridley Scott is the next director up to bat when it comes to absolutely shredding run-of-the-mill superhero films (without naming any names). In a recent interview with Deadline, the House Of Gucci director let his thoughts on the current age of hero flicks loose.
“The best films are driven by the characters, and we’ll come to superheroes after this if you want, because I’ll crush it. I’ll fucking crush it. They’re fucking boring as shit,” Scott recently told Deadline in an interview, adding, “[Superhero movie] scripts are not any fucking good.”
When looking back on his career, Scott would say he’s made “three great scripted superhero movies… One would be Alien with Sigourney Weaver. One would be fucking Gladiator, and one would be Harrison Ford [in Blade Runner]. They’re superhero movies. So, why don’t the superhero movies have better stories?”
Scott continues, “Sorry. I got off the rail, but I mean, come on. [Superhero movies] are mostly saved by special effects, and that’s becoming boring for everyone who works with special effects, if you’ve got the money.”
When it comes to superhero movies, Scott would rather rely on substance and subverting audience expectations as seen in Blade Runner.
“Harrison Ford was one superhero but everyone was confused because he got the shit beaten out of him at the end by the other superhero, who they thought was the bad guy, but turned out to be a good guy. I think that’s pretty cool,” Scott says.
Scott’s far from the first major director to look down upon superhero films over the last couple of years, even if they have directed one themselves. In July, The Suicide Squad director James Gunn called comic book-based films “dumb” and “boring,” despite doing press for one he made at the time.
When penning a New York Times op-ed last year, revered director Martin Scorsese called Marvel films low-brow art with no “revelation, mystery, or genuine emotional danger.” He even dared say that they aren’t “cinema.”
And who could ever forget Watchmen creator Alan Moore saying, “[Superhero movies] have blighted cinema, and also blighted culture to a degree,” calling audiences big ol’ babies for lining up to watch something originally intended for children.
*Begins slamming hands on a table while chanting “Who’s next?”*
330 Comments
Go fuck yourself, Sir.
He clearly hasn’t seen The Suicide Squad.I’d also contend that the genre categorically isn’t driven by the characters given that it’s literally the one genre named after its protagonist.
To me, The Suicide Squad felt like a collection of ideas jammed together into a movie and then they let a 12 year old write the jokes. No character growth, no stakes that you actually care about, no excitement. I actually think The Suicide Squad is a perfect example for the point Scott is trying to make.
No character growthBloodsport learning to be a leader and a father. Polka Dot Man embracing what he thought was a curse to become what he’d always dreamed of being. Harley Quinn learning her self-worth. Peacemaker’s realisation that he isn’t the hero he thought. Rick Flag choosing justice over duty. They were all pretty blatant. Dunno how you managed to miss it. It’d be like not noticing that giant fuck-off starfish.
You would be wrong, if you said the last 20 mcu films you would be right
While this is true, it was also (for me) a lot of fun and not boring. I was sufficiently entertained for a couple of hours, which is what I was hoping for going into The Suicide Squad.
Detective stories?
Slashers are named after their antagonists, but those antagonists don’t necessarily receive much characterization.
Fuck yeah. 60% of superhero movies are the same. 20% subvert the genre and are good. 20% are shit.Not to say they can’t be well-made! However, when Tony Stark isn’t turned to jelly as he’s thrown against a skyscraper 4 blocks away… there’s just no stakes at all. James Bond is my favorite franchise, and it’s stupid too, but it took 50+ years to get 26 Bond movies, not 13 years.
Wow, publicly disliking something popular. How edgy! Will he next talk about how too many people had Squid Game costumes for Halloween? How pumpkin spice is everywhere? Honestly, give him a talk show, his takes are fresh and fascinating.
Gladiator is horribly overrated!
Ironically, by having the showdown with Commodus in the arena, Scott is playing into the largely false propaganda the real Commodus pushed to make himself seem awesome. It’s like if you made a movie about World War but exclusively referenced the memoirs of Kaiser Wilhelm.
Whoops, replied to wrong post.
I’m just glad people can see & reply to be again since I was accidentally shadowbanned since Thursday.
Was it accidental? You’re always posting a link to your blog in your comments. I don’t know if that’s technically against the rules here, but it is awfully spammy.
Baraka Karesko explained “A bad actor has been going through all the comments under our Supergirl
recaps, and flagging every comment as “Hate speech” in order to flood
the moderation page. In the process of un-flagging all those comments, I
believe I blocked you.”
Just Reading & Commenting said the same thing happened to them.
Oh, yikes. That sucks for everyone all around. I’ve often wondered how effective the flagging system is, so I guess it’s good to know it sort of works. Sorry you got sideswiped in the process.
Gladiator is one of the best Hollywood action epics ever.
Nope.
Agreed. Saw it in the theater. Absolutely zero desire to see it ever again.
Gladiator is just Bloodsport, except not as good.
Indeed. Gladiator is not a great movie – even if we limit it to the category of superhero movies.
I liked it when it first came out, but over time there are some things I didn’t care for. Phoenix as Commodus was too over the top, and Crowe doesn’t have enough charisma as the lead. I do think the cinematography and combat scenes are impressive, and I still love that song at the end. I laughed out loud at the “restoration of the Republic” bit. I know it’s fiction, but the idea cracked me up. I can just hear Robert Graves’ version of Claudius going “THAT is what restored the Republic?! Really? THAT’S ALL IT TOOK?! I would’ve thrown myself in the arena ages ago!”
I haven’t seen it since I was maybe 17, but I remember liking Phoenix since he was the only one who seemed to be leaning into the melodrama of it all. I should rewatch it and see what I think as an older, wiser film-goer.
I can only watch the action scenes in it and skip the rest. It is the exact counterpoint to The Dark Knight in that regard, in that I only want to watch people talking in the latter and skip the action sequences.
Sometimes I just run the IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight. That prisoner transfer scene on Lower Wacker is amazing.
Gladiator is a slightly less racist version of 300, but less visually interesting. They’re about equally historically accurate, which is not at all.
Gladiator isn’t an exemplar of a movie with a great script? But it was written by the same guy who wrote the scintillating screenplays of The Time Machine (2002) and Star Trek: Nemesis! How can you possibly argue with that?
But hey, you’ll get a chance to watch the sequel if it ever gets to celluloid. There really are plans to do that so be prepared.
Gladiator is basically a Schwarzenegger movie that accidentally had a more interesting actor in the lead (Crowe has become less interesting since, but this wasn’t too far removed from his Insider days). That’s the only thing that prevented it from being a campy swords and sandals spectacle. Even Djimon Hounsou killing it in a smaller role wouldn’t have prevented that.
A more self-aware Schwarzenegger version might’ve been more enjoyable.
Not to mention, a rip-off of Ben Hur.
Take that a little further. It’s a bad movie
THANK YOU! I have felt this ever since it came out. I don’t get the love.
Hollywood has always churned out cookie-cutter, mass appeal hero stories. It’d been cowboys and pirates and gladiators and knights and cops and secret agents and now its superheroes. It’s not great cinema and never has been but it keeps the lights on and allows auteurs to do their thing.
…the market created by tentpole blockbusters has specifically shouldered out the mid-range budget and overshadowed the independent/arthouse market. The economic effect of these movies is making it harder for the auteurs.
Has it actually, or is this one of those “many people are saying” things?
Bah, facts and figures aren’t germane to this discussion.
Well, A24 exists and was offered to be bought at a huge valuation.
Like a lot of common sense falsehoods, I think it’s got a seed of truth in it. I find it very easy to believe that some filmmakers who don’t have a recognizable name are finding it difficult to get the films they want to make made. Of course, it’s always very difficult for those people to get their films made, but it is perhaps made more difficult by the demand for superhero movies.But if the effect is supposed to be visible in the movies that are coming out these days, then said effect is barely noticeable. There are certainly more towering blockbusters out every year, and Disney as a cultural force is largely to blame for that. But of the now 26 movies I’ve seen in theaters this year, only 6 made over $100 million. A few others were rereleases, but mostly I’ve seen medium films by known directors (French Dispatch, In The Heights), small films by known directors (Belfast, The Green Knight), or small films by newer directors (Nine Days, Copshop). These movies are still coming out regularly.If anything, I’d say Netflix and the other streamers are doing more damage to the situation than Disney, by churning out three or four Red Notices and Gunpowder Milkshakes a month. And that’s just a part of their “Spend as much money as we can on content for as long as we can” business strategy, which also happens to get things like The Irishman and Roma into the world, so it’s not all bad.
Precisely, plus, the number of movies coming out of Hollywood each year hasn’t been at all diminished by the Superhero Age. That’s a hard figure that’s seconds away on Google.
i see more people uncritically saying the “superhero movies are giving auteurs the opportunity to do their own things! <3<3<3" without supporting evidence. but i can tell you that my local theater showed the french dispatch for literally a single day before going back to wall-to-wall franchise showings for an entire week
It’s reflected in studio slates, the budgets of those movies, and the box-office results for those movies. The mid-budget comedy or romantic comedy is borderline nonexistent; I mean, Crazy Rich Asians was such a big deal because it was the first romcom in maybe a decade to be so profitable and culturally relevant. If you’re paying any attention to industry trends and the numbers themselves, it’s very clear studios would rather gamble $200 million on making $1 billion than gamble $25 million to make $100 million. It’s not one of those things “many people are saying.”
I’d genuinely like to see data on that. Could those mid-budget movies simply have migrated to the streaming services as (probably) better spots to land anyway? Certainly don’t seem to be any shortage of them there.
I’m not sure what chart or graph would make you happy. Again, box office data is freely available for you to take a look for yourself and compare the budgets and types of movies being released and making money, as well as plenty of entertainment trades reporting on the business (and not just clickbait bullshit like the AVClub here); I did fi, a sharp rise in budgets over $100 mil, and a decrease in budget for non-adventure movies. Another microcosm of this I might recommend checking out is the acquisition of HBO by AT&T; there was a pretty infamous meeting where an AT&T exec handwaved any sort of creative success associated with the network away, pointing out “billions are not enough.” Overall the trend in the industry isn’t “make a good thing, make a little profit;” it’s “make a big investment in delivering content that hits across all quadrants.”I’m glad you brought up streaming, as that’s part of the industry experiencing this identity crisis; people are going to the movies less, and mainly for big, spectacular movies that are “worth seeing on the big screen.” This has been a push-pull since the invention of TV; as a good entertainment experience is increasingly available at home, the movies try to compensate with spectacle, sometimes for better (technicolor, panavision), sometimes for the worse (smellovision, 4DX). The very fact that the mid-budget movies do get shunted off to streaming services, where viewing data is famously obscured and massaged to look amazing (65 million households watched the first 10 minutes of Red Notice or whatever) or not shared at all, is part of the issue I’m trying to point out. When a production company makes a mid-budget adult drama, it’s safer to sell it to Netflix or Amazon for a slight profit than to distribute it in theaters and hope enough people put their butts in the seat.
“The very fact that the mid-budget movies do get shunted off to streaming services, where viewing data is famously obscured and massaged to look amazing (65 million households watched the first 10 minutes of Red Notice or whatever) or not shared at all, is part of the issue I’m trying to point out. When a production company makes a mid-budget adult drama, it’s safer to sell it to Netflix or Amazon for a slight profit than to distribute it in theaters and hope enough people put their butts in the seat.”
But that second part is exactly my point, as that mid-budget adult drama is still being made – not being shouldered out at all! Perhaps I misread your initial post as though the “shouldering out” was these movies not being made at all – did you intend that more as them just not going to the big screen?
effect of these movies is making it harder for the auteursYou mean like Taika Watiti? Or Ryan Coogler? Or Sam Raimi? Or Christopher Nolan?
I love Sam Raimi, but to lump him in with “auteurs” is absurd. He’s basically the modern Roger Corman, making fun, disposable stuff. It totally fits that he got a superhero franchise because they aren’t that different from the horror movies he started with.
But the other three meet with your approval?That’s good.
Well, they are more “auteurs” for better or worse. Which means that having them direct superhero movies is a waste of talent, even if it is profitable for them. It reminds me of physics PhDs that go to Wall Street and become quants. All that brainpower to do something not that important.
Which means that having them direct superhero movies is a waste of talentDespite their enthusiasm for these projects, I’m sure you would prefer them doing something more “meaningful” with their time.
It reminds me of physics PhDs that go to Wall Street and become quants. All that brainpower to do something not that important. FWIW, the quants are the ones that directly inform company policy. Best layman example I can think of (just for the benefit of all reading) would be Jonah Hill’s character in Moneyball. Not quite analogous, but on the same idea. INTENSE number crunching and modeling, which drives investment strategy.
I’d say Raimi fits the definition.
Raimi has also done films like A Simple Plan and For Love of the Game. The man knows how to make a film and is very good at it. The Evil Dead series may be cheap, but it’s lasted 40+ years and keeps being remade/rebooted. He’s most definitely an auteur in much the same way that Hitchcock was.
“…making fun, disposable stuff”and A Simple Plan(whoops, someone else already said that)
I mean, there is something to be said for the fact that Chloe Zhao went from making an Oscar winning indie film to making a substandard superhero flick, relying strictly on her aesthetic eye and not any of her other strengths for grounded storytelling.
Your examples being people who leveraged creative freedom out of delivering commercially successful superhero movies isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is.
The definition of auteur and the construction of the MCU are fundamentally opposed to each other. Auteur theory suggests that, at the end of the day, a film is the work of the director – the auteur, because it was defined by the French – and they have final say on what the film is.The MCU, and it’s “everything is connected” design, demands directors give up a degree of control in order fit it into the greater whole. While some directors can have greater control than others, there is an inherent lack of control given the very nature of the work.
Oonlyie of those is valid, christopher nolan, sam raimi is alright and the other two are just bad
Ryan Coogler has directed 3 movies, 2 of them franchise pics, and his next the continuation of a franchise. He’s got auteur status? Fucking sheesh the bar is low now.
Not to mention that an actor hasn’t really “arrived” until they have been cast in the MCU now. And, of course, we have actors in their 40s, 50s and up (Blachett and Goldblum) who get to step in and show the kids how it’s done – again.
I mean, there’s still a shit-ton of acclaimed, successful indie shit. The superhero fad just hasn’t really played out yet, and the audience is seeing the flicks.I mean, fuck, the franchise wars were going before Marvel entered the game in earnest. U.S. theaters BEEN line driving pap toward middle America, it’s just brighter and louder at present.Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see original material succeed to a greater degree. But, like, the “Oscar class” is still very much a thing, as is the indie scene.
I’m trying to say the gulf between the “commercial class” and the “Oscar class” is widening. In the past, Best Picture et al would reflect, to some extent, commercial success and some sort of populist support; check out the box office earnings of a Best Picture from the 80s vs the 10s. Studios no longer throw midsize adult dramas on their slate out of hopes of awards success, because there’s no market for adult dramas; rather, they pick up an indie flick from the festival circuit and put their marketing behind that.
I get you. I think that’s more a consequence of a number of factors, such as the availability of portable media, the “prestige age” of television, a wider variety of “date night” options, etc., so the theaters and producers are chasing what’ll draw folks in (even if a third of them are fucking around on their phones half the runtime).Don’t get me wrong, the novelty of superhero flicks has worn off for me. I’ll watch them, in time, but they’re no longer “events.” What was novel in the early 2000s has become a self-sustaining IP engine, and it’s…eh, so-so.
Oh definitely; I realize I’m erecting a lightning rod in trying to point this out in a Superhero Movie thread (where lobbying a critique of superhero movies or the economics behind them is the same as saying they’re The Devil and people should feel bad for enjoying them), but streaming is a huge factor here. I pointed it out in another comment, but this whole thing is just another round in the TV vs Cinema battle that’s raged since the invention of the cathode tube; as home entertainment makes strides, the movie industry experiences crises of confidence. Sometimes that leads to innovations like Panavision or Technicolor; sometimes that leads to Smell-o-Vision and 4DX. Right now, people are getting well-acted, thoughtfully-written stories on tv, so Hollywood is swinging in the opposite direction, trying to deliver movies that one could only experience in the theater.
SIDEBAR: I legitimately have no idea why drive-ins didn’t make more of a resurgence.
I think they had a little bit of a moment during the pandemic, but I think drive-ins are stymied by seasons and weather; in the summer when it’s warm enough to sit in the car with windows open, the sun goes down late which limits screenings, and people don’t want to sit in the car in the winter when you can program more movies.
The average American vehicle is a Ford F-150 which is basically a mobile living room. Why would you drive one living room somewhere else to watch a movie when there’s already a living room in your house and the movie is likely available there as well?Also sound quality. THX bass beats all but the most annoying combinations of amps and subs. And they’re probably mushy and garbled. I don’t hate those setups because of their volume but because the people inside are being deafened and can’t even listen to the music clearly.
I guess what’s confusing for me is that if this is just part of a vaguely periodic ebb and flow between TV and Cinema, then are the auteurs really finding it more difficult to create content now? Aren’t those people just creating more TV shows than movies these days? What sort of movies were the 80s producing that we aren’t able see nowadays? Looking at 1985, it looks like the Best Picture nominees were making anywhere from about $5-80 million in 2021 dollars. That’s not super far off from the range of the last few years.
They all make 10 episode mini-series for HBO Max now instead
The entire streaming industry is proving you wrong on a regular basis.Movies are more than what shows up in theaters.
No doubt, but I’m sure it’s the sheer quantity, and the overwhelming box office dominance compared to any of those past genres, that have got old-school directors like this up in arms.
that have got old-school directors like this up in arms.Yes, but it’s not as if this is a new thing either. Do you think the previous generation of filmmakers weren’t upset at the proliferation of creature features in the 50’s? Or Bond knock offs in the 60’s? Or Car Chase movies in the 70’s? Or Slasher film franchises in the 80’s?
I mean he’s not wrong. As much as I love the Marvel movies they mostly follow the same formula. There are few surprises, the hero is never in any real danger, and they often end with a CGI heavy fight against a similar foe. There are rarely any real stakes to them and little to no character development. I watched Shang Chi this weekend and found it funny and entertaining for two hours, but could have pretty accurately predicted the rest of the movie after the first 30 mins or so. The formula has grown tired and I worry that once the characters I’ve become attached to over the past 10+ years (Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Spiderman) are no longer in the movies I’m going to be too bored to tune for all the new ones (Eternals, Ms Marvel, She Hulk, Shang Chi 2, etc.)
I have hopes for She Hulk and Ms Marvel, but I’m not interested at all in the Eternals. At the end of that movie when it popped up on screen that they were returning my honest thought was “Must they?” I’ve decided that part of the problem is that even though it was ostensibly an origin story, they were plopped into the movie fully formed and super powerful and essentially remained that way. Same with Shang-Chi. At least with Thor, a god, they had the good sense to weaken him for the bulk of his film.
Alien is one of my favorite movies, and Aliens isn’t far behind. The reason Resurrection sucks (well, one of them) is because they decided that this scrappy survivor, whose whole thing is being outmatched by impossible odds but who claws her way to victory with her intelligence and courage instead of unusual powers or abilities or tools, would work better as a superhero. So yeah I literally have no idea what he’s talking about on that front, dude makes maybe the best horror movie ever made and declares it a superhero flick.
For the rest of it, just swap out “Superhero” with “Western” and look at eras past in terms of the market being saturated with a bunch of samey action movies with a few standouts in the mix. A boring take because it’s true, but conveyed passionately at least, and unlike Scorsese I get the sense that he’s actually bothered to watch any of them before making a mass declaration.
It’s really a shame that this is what gets cherry picked, because overall it was a pretty good interview… the bulk of which is about House of Gucci.That said, the minute I read it on Friday, I was waiting to see how long before AVC reported on the 2% of it where he said superhero scripts are not good.
I so rarely say these first few words, but here goes:In AV Club’s defense (ugh), what else from the interview is worth talking about? Like, I agree it’s a good interview, but “Better website interviews Ridley Scott” isn’t much of a story. It makes sense to zero in on an aspect of the interview that’s new information that appeals to the demographic this site wants clicks from; it isn’t taken out of context, and it’s an opinion Scott clearly feels strongly about (he, not the interviewer, brings it up), so I don’t see how it’s cherry picking.
I’m just old manning/feeling nostalgic for the old AV Club.This is definitely what you put out to get clicks/comments now. I’m just a big Ridley fan and to see this wonderful interview reduced to this, and the commentary then being directed to the superhero discussion all over again… it’s deflating.
“This is definitely what you put out to get clicks/comments now.”The AVClub was like this long before the move to kinja. It’s the nature of the internet.
The AVClub was like this long before They didn’t seem so gleeful about it back then.
Where the hell are you getting any glee from anything on this site.
Yet, I absolutely would have clicked on your alternative headline.
I wish websites wouldn’t write these inane write-ups based on snippets of interviews from other publications.
You know damn well this isn’t about him thinking super hero movies aren’t good.It’s that he says that, and then calls his own most popular movies super hero movies.It’s ridiculous.
The more Scott tries to mess with the Alien franchise the more convinced that its success was more the work of Dan O’Bannon, who rehashed concepts from Dark Star for Alien, and HR Geiger.
I’d think that more if he hadn’t put out Blade Runner three years later. Like, I agree that O’Bannon and Geiger were perhaps more critical to Alien’s success, but I don’t wanna undervalue that era of Scott as a sci fi director. The Alien conversation makes me think of folks who boomerang hard on Stan Lee and are so against him getting all the credit for the works of others that they dismiss him getting credit at all.
Eh, Blade Runner is overrated. Yes, it was influential, mainly due to its visual style, but there’s a reason there’s so many versions of it. Scott really wasn’t invested in much more than making it pretty and his big idea of making Deckard a replicant, which pretty much destroys the meaning of the book, which was ignored from the start anyway. He would barely even direct actors on set because he was pissed about American union rules. Ford hated not being directed and phoned in most of the movie because filming was a shitshow. Scott cared far more about the SFX and set production.Ford also hated Scott’s idea that Deckard was an android, which wasn’t in the script, because it defeats the whole purpose, so Scott filmed the unicorn dream and the origami unicorn scene without telling him, which made Ford irate when he saw the rough cut. The only smart thing Scott did was cut the narration from the script, which Ford had objected to from the start. Then Scott panicked over two bad test screenings and decided to add all the narration back, and then some, and the happy ending which used some unused footage from The Shining. Which Ford thought was a joke, but was contractually obliged to do, and sleepily said the narration lines. Then the movie still didn’t do well in the box office, and Scott was content to forget about it. The whole impetus for the Final Cut came about because an unfinished cut accidently got shown in a bunch of theaters and people were like, hey, this is better without the goofy narration so WB gave Scott a bunch of money to recut it.Scott has always cared about production and effects far more than characters and story. The idea that he would be barking about good scripts is kind of comical. His output got worse, more facile, the more he had control over scripts.
O’Bannon was incredibly bitter about Giger’s alien design, saying that, in a crucial pre-production meeting, the Swiss artist “completely ignored the beach ball [O’Bannon] had brought along as inspiration.”
And in the end, didn’t Giger copy his basic idea? Giger liked to make things look like dicks and vaginas. O’Bannon was ahead of the game by suggesting a ball.
That’d be my sense.
not to mention that the plot seems lifted wholesale from Doctor Who’s “The Ark in Space”
Don’t forget Moebius. Not just Alien but some of the shots in Blade Runner are almost complete recreations of panels from O’Bannon and Moebius’s “The Long Tomorrow” comic from Metal hurlant. Moebius’s influence is also all over Scott’s earliest concept art for Blade Runner:
I think that’s unfair. It was probably all of them together that made Alien so great. Scott is a fine director, it’s just that he wouldn’t recognise a quality script if it bit him on the ass, so it’s pot luck as to what he’s working with on any given project.If he gets handed a good script, he’ll shoot the hell out of it.
It he gets handed a mediocre script, he’ll shoot the hell out of it, and probably turn out a decent film.
If he gets handed a bad script, he’ll shoot the hell out of it, but that won’t fix the fundamental problems it has.
If he gets heavily involved in developing the story himself (hello, Alien prequels), he’ll shoot the hell out of it, but it’ll be an absolute shitshow.
Maybe there’s an argument that Aliens is a superhero movie – I personally don’t think so but can at least understand the argument – but for Alien I don’t get where he’s coming from at all. He doesn’t provide any reasoning in the interview so I suspect he’s just being contrarian – if he really did envision Ripley as a superhero when he was shooting Alien in the 70’s I’d love to hear his thoughts. Scott also has a history of being an egotistical dickhead so it would be on brand for him to say “I already did something better than this 40 years ago”
Yeah, Aliens at least has a superhero arc if you squint real hard, but in no world does Alien count unless the star beast is supposed to be the superhero.
(That said, like you I disagree that Aliens is a superhero movie either; if it is, what action movies aren’t superhero movies?)
By definition Ripley, not having any paranormal abilities, isn’t a superhero. Also, I don’t usually react, but I’m really sick of the F word.
He definitely didn’t envision Ripley as a superhero in Alien. He’s either being intentionally silly or he’s just being dumb. As you note, he tends to come off as an egotistical asshat in interviews. Same thing with Decker, who was a prototypical noir detective, who eventually figures everything out but gets their ass kicked along the way. I’ll grant him Gladiator to a certain degree. Mainly because it’s ridiculously overrated and the main character is basically a superhumanly good fighter, leader, tactician, etc.
In the broad category of films that could be broadly grouped as an action film of any type, yes, Alien is at the top of the pack, although horror is a better fit. The characters were interesting, I would have watched them in something that was not a horror film in space. The crew of the Nostromo pulling off a space heist would have been interesting. Watching that ship full of tribbles would have been interesting.
One of the great things about the original Alien is that it’s NOT a superhero movie. Nobody seems to have plot armor, Ripley just happens to survive by keeping her wits about her and not doing anything foolhardy enough to get killed.
And in Blade Runner Deckard was all too human (no, he wasn’t a replicant, that would be stupid and destroy the “tears in the rain” speech). He was only saved by the superhuman strength of Roy Batty. Maybe the replicants were the superheros.
(no, he wasn’t a replicant, that would be stupid and destroy the “tears in the rain” speech)
Neither would “destroy” that speech because the whole point of the question is that the answer doesn’t matter, replicants are human in every way that’s important.
The point of the speech is that “you people” (humans) haven’t experienced the things Roy as a replicant had. He may have only lived four years, but he lived more in those 4 years than Deckard had in forty. If it turned out Deckard only lived four years (or less) that becomes meaningless.
Actually, the question does matter, particularly in the book. Not to mention, in the script Deckard is obviously human, and when Scott’s “big idea” was to make Deckard and android Ford vehemently protested. So Scott filmed the unicorn scenes without telling him. The point is a human realizing that androids are basically human. That’s Deckard, and the audience’s journey. Making Deckard be an android is just stupid (including just the logistical question of, how?), but part and parcel with what Scott seems to think are interesting ideas.
Why would him being a replicant affect the impact of the speech? Took my breath away the first time I watched it — in that moment, I was definitely not thinking about whether Harrison Ford was human or not. Just thinking about the impermanence of everything. (Which I suppose is what Deckard is also supposed to be thinking of at that point.)
According to Scott, Deckard was a replicant, which was an idea basically everyone hated, particularly Ford. That was the point of the stupid unicorn dream scene and the origami unicorn being left at his door in the director’s cut.
I always think about Westerns when this topic comes up. Imagine going back to the 50s and telling your average cinema goer that in 30 or years time the only guy that can get a western made is the pretty boy from Rawhide and that in 40 years they’re pretty much done.
And also in 60 Lloyd Bridges kid is going to be Rooster Cogburn.
Imagine going back to the 50s and telling your average cinema goer that in 30 or years time the only guy that can get a western made is the pretty boy from Rawhide and that in 40 years they’re pretty much done.I think after 50 years of “oaters” being loaded on to the assembly line for both movies and tv that some of those goers would be okay with it.Specifically, I’m picturing that scene in The Apartment when Jack Lemmon sits down to watch TV and every channel has a western on it.
Oddly in this interview, Ridley recounts telling Clint he watched Rawhide and Clint didn’t even remember being in Rawhide!
So yeah I literally have no idea what he’s talking about on that front, dude makes maybe the best horror movie ever made and declares it a superhero flick.
Scott is just being old and cranky (though still a genius imo). You are right, Alien is a horror movie and I’m sure Scott knows that. Bladerunner is a fairly straightforward noir detective story, no different really than stories in that genre by Raymond Chandler or Walter Mosley. All that’s changed are the moral and economic dilemmas that drive narratives in that genre have science fiction trappings. Everything about Scott’s aesthetics for that film clearly indicate he’s aware he is making a noir.Gladiator is the only film listed imo that can lay some claim to the superhero mantle. The story takes the form of a legend/myth about a gifted, heroic warrior, a predecessor form to the superhero genre. Just like Robin Hood and King Arthur are precursors to superheroes, Gladiator is throwback to fantasy adventures with exceptional, righteous characters at their center.
I do think that the idea of the superhero movie as the Western’s modern equivalent is very silly, but I understand why someone may think otherwise and I’d like to explain why I disagree.Westerns were produced in large quantities and they took over the cultural narrative. Both of these things are true, and both apply to superhero movies. But it’s important to ask *who* was producing them, and *why* and *how* they took over the culture.Are Westerns the superhero movies of their times in terms of their budgets, their profits, or their artistry? While the answer to the first two is an objective “no”, I suppose the last one is subjective, and you may very well believe they are. But the greatest films in that genre were made by John Ford, Anthony Mann, Sam Fuller, Howard Hawks, Nicholas Ray, Budd Boetticher, Sam Peckinpah, Sergio Leone, etc. The list of esteemed filmmakers to helm IP-based superhero pictures include Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, Christopher Nolan, and…? With respect to them, it’s just not close. (And even then, it’s significant to note that their forays into the genre were outside of the current “studio-as-auteur” model of the Marvel machine, in which a producer like Kevin Feige oversees the enterprise in a way not unlike a TV showrunner.)In regards to the ways in which supererhero movies and Westerns both captured the cultural imagination, I’m reminded of something Nick Pinkerton wrote in Film Comment:“The early western had first to represent itself to a rural audience that recognized proper horsemanship; the action film of the compulsory service period had to address a viewership with a basic-training understanding of tactical combat. By contrast, the superhero film’s principal responsibility is to “fan service”—not disappointing the expectations of the property’s inscribed audience. In this way, the superhero film is a distinctly postindustrial manifestation of the action film—witness the Reddit-circulated images of Marvel movie shoots before CGI tampering, in which Chris Hemsworth, Benedict Cumberbatch, and the like can be seen making feeble leaps in cumbersome costumes, which a battalion of technicians will turn into seamless up, up, and away. They are the products of—and the fantasy life to—a white-collar America, and as such it is only appropriate that their market triumph represents the dominance of managerial intelligence over the hands-on worker. For this reason, as much as any other, they may be the quintessential films of their time.”The Western film as a genre exists as a kind of American mythology (Jean-Luc Godard famously compared the ending of The Searchers with the reunion of Odysseus and Telemachus) and a rich folk art. Superhero movies are, broadly, intellectual property owned by two media conglomerates that don’t/couldn’t speak to our literal or psychological realities the way a Western did/does.I’m not just blindly hating, either. I enjoy Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies a great deal, for instance (not to mention his original superhero creation, Darkman — is there a part of the multiverse or whatever I could visit where that movie grossed as much as Endgame?). But I think the antecedent to the superhero movie is probably more like the sci-fi serials of the 30s, 40s, and 50s — your Buck Rogers, your Commander Codys, your Flash Gordons. Nothing wrong with that if that’s your thing, but I think/hope that the MCU, whatever it looks like decades down the line, will not be discussed as important cinema with significant cultural merit on the level of, say, Red River or Man of the West or My Darling Clementine or Forty Guns or Johnny Guitar or Once Upon a Time in the West or The Wild Bunch or…
So yeah I literally have no idea what he’s talking about on that front, dude makes maybe the best horror movie ever made and declares it a superhero flick.Honestly, it feels like a dismissal of the genre, as if any movie can be a superhero movie, while simultaneously jerking off his most well-known successes.
I get the feeling he’s been offered a few scripts, even. Martin Scorcese wouldn’t be a natural choice for a superhero movie, but Ridley Scott has made some very mainstream Hollywood entertainment, so it wouldn’t be strange to think of him.
>[Superhero movie] scripts are not any fucking good.They should be right up his alley then lmao. Dude has directed a number of films with completely awful scripts; every time he gets near the Alien franchise he makes it worse.
Kind of my thought. Prometheus was fucking TERRIBLE. When was the last good Ridley Scott movie? Gladiator? Not exactly high art even if it’s awesome.
have you ever fucking added a single thing to any comment thread on this entire site that isn’t just somebody else’s work? oh check out this panel from one more day, check out this video from red letter media! fucking hell, if you can’t express your own opinion with your own words you forfeit your right to exist
Exactly what came to my mind. Pretty to look at, but everything else is a train wreck.
I quite liked The Martian and Ridley Scott probably had a lot to do with that movie being as good as it was but I agree that it’s not exactly high art. He’s been inconsistent for a while but looking at his IMDB page there’s a lot more mediocre crap in there than I was expecting. Dude has inarguably made some all time classics though.
The Last Duel was the last good Ridley Scott movie. You know, from way back a month ago. Also, The Martian.
He’s made a lot of movies; some of them are not great, but a lot of them are.
Apparently we differ on what’s good. Unless Scott meant The Last Duel to be a parody, but I suspect it’s goofiness was unintentional.
I really liked The Last Duel. It was an interesting and layered story for adults that was well acted. Jodie Comer was exceptional in it.
I saw Last Duel a couple weeks ago and thought it was pretty good, even if some critics have overpraised it.https://thepopculturists.blogspot.com/2021/11/this-weekend-in-pop-culture-november-5-7.html#comment-5599474020All the Money in the World was much better than Danny Boyle’s indulgent limited series adaptation of the same story. The Martian was also good, and genuinely funny even if it grates people that the Golden Globes categorized it as a comedy (which it admittedly isn’t).
Fair! I totally spaced on last duel. I would like to see it. So, keep Scott away from alien shit and he’s at least solid?🤣
All the Money in the World reminded us, that even near the end of his life, Christopher Plummer was a damn good actor.
The Counselor is great. There are dozens of us.
Prometheus was fucking TERRIBLEI loved how these brilliant scientists suddenly turn into idiots when they reach the planet.And why didn’t Charlize Theron and that other woman just step off to the side?
I don’t even WANT to nitpick or overthink but man… That one beat you over the head with the stupid.
Yeah. Visually amazing in places, with some of the most amazing dumbshit moves ever. Time to take of my helmet! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
The Martian was the last great RS movie, and it’s fantastic.
I think Prometheus actually rules. People get hung up on a couple of times characters do stupid things (they don’t know they’re in an Alien movie!!), but there’s a whole lot more going on there, and the movie is just so nasty and mean and bleak. It’s great!
Alien: Covenant rules even more, mostly because it’s somehow even nastier. The Last Duel was very good, the Kingdom of Heaven director’s cut was fantastic, The Martian was very good (and is way more of a superhero movie than anything Scott mentioned himself). Black Hawk Down was after Gladiator.
And I’m also a The Counselor defender, although I know that’s a tough sell for people.
Prometheus is okay, but I agree with you on Alien: Covenant. I quite enjoyed it. Don’t know if it’s “high art” though.To be honest, I don’t really disagree with what he said, but I still watch superhero movies. They’re often entertaining.What I don’t get is people who seem to think that movies (or film or cinema or whatever the hell you want to call it) have to be one specific way.
Uh, the characters in the original Alien movie weren’t stupid enough go outside without full space suits. The plots of Prometheus and Covenant are impossible without impossible amounts of stupidity.
He certainly has made stinkers, but “The Last Duel” is pretty great, and it’s out now.
Black Hawk Down. I’m surprised he didn’t include it, actually, and name Bana’s character as the main superhero.
Yeah, those Delta Force guys are presented like superheroes.
Kingdom of Heaven has grown on me over time. Not Alien level, and with a weak lead (Orlando Bloom disappears into himself at times), but when it comes on cable, I always watch it. The siege towers falling and Saladin nodding slowly with respect toward his unseen adversary who is making his job a lot harder than he would have guessed was excellent work.
Prometheus is such a waste of a good concept and a stellar cast. It felt like 5 different movies trying to happen at once.
Logan had a better script then Conquest Of Paradise or Exodus. I’m not even the biggest fan of superheros but Scott is not right.
What a joke! Has he even seen modern superhero movies? Like, Endgame was a culmination of a decade of storytelling and character development. I’d love to see Ridley Scott even attempt that. But he’s out of his depth on this one.
I loved Endgame (and Infinity War), but truly it’s barely even a film on it’s own. I think it often gets a pass because all the prior films took care of the setup and character introductions but Endgame itself has very little, if any, of these things. If you hadn’t already seen most of the preceding 20 movies you wouldn’t have any idea what was going on in Infinity War nor Endgame. It was all spectacle, Easter eggs, and fan service and I loved every minute of it, but I wouldn’t say it’s existence proves Ridley Scott wrong.
“If you hadn’t already seen most of the preceding 20 movies you wouldn’t have any idea what was going on” This feels disingenuous bc at no point was it pretending to be anything else. You can’t talk about these movies like they’re ‘regular’ movies bc they’re not. I’m not advocating for them one way or the other, but it was always a shared universe project. For all of the cgi sh*tshow, quips, callbacks and whatever that might be present in any individual movie, the long term project and appeal of the mcu is and always has been character. Long term growth, interaction, etc
Ok, if you can’t talk about these movies like they’re “regular” movies then I think you need to treat them more like a TV series. But how many of the episodes are standalone origin stories that played out in very similar ways? So it would kind of be like watching the same episode over and over again (humor me here) with new characters and then some additional episodes interspersed with “team-ups” which really are the strength of the series. Watching Thor deadpan opposite the GOTG is fantastic, because of the contrast they provide one another.
I think character growth in the MCU is hit and miss. There are certainly examples of growth over time:
Tony Stark becomes less selfish
Steve Rogers becomes more cynical of the gov’t and control
Wanda deals with loss
and then there are examples of characters who have changed stylistically, but not really because of anything their characters did in universe:
Thor is completely different in Ragnarok compared to prior movies
Rhodey is suddenly full of bad jokes
and finally there are plenty who haven’t changed much at all:
Black Widow
Hawkeye
Spiderman
Ant Man
any of the GOTG
Endgame works because matching up all these characters is fun but not because all of them have grown together for a long time over the course of the series.
How are you forgetting the character development of Rocket? As the only surviving Guardian he serves for YEARS as an Avenger in memory of his chosen family and then helps save the fucking galaxy. That is a long shot from who he is when we first meet him and Groot in the first Guardians movie.
I figured I’d get some disagreement here, but Rocket? The CGI rabbit who is obsessed with weapons and stealing? I really don’t think he changed much at all. Going from a space pirate to a space pirate who teams up with others to help save the world from a shared enemy is hardly character growth.
I disagree. I think there is more there if you care to look.
Endgame is the season finale of Marvel Season 4. Most of the movies can be watched as standalone films, but their strength is in the growth of the characters across multiple movies. And that’s real easy to overlook if you only see a couple of the movies.
Why watch a character grow over one movie when you can watch them do it over fifteen?
None of those are superhero movies…
Exactly. A movie with a hero ≠ a superhero movie.
= a hero movie
A crucial tell: near the end of Alien, Sigourney Weaver is wearing her underwear, rather than the pajamas she’d be sporting if it was a superhero movie.
If she was wear thighs under them she’d have been a superhero.
She WAS wearing thighs! I remember them well.
Her underwear is her costume. Think of it as a another iteration of Power Girl.
Gladiator would be the closest to what @Yeahyeah above brings up.
Gladiator comes closest to the template, I think. Maximus’ backstory story fits with a lot of superhero origins, and he even spends a good chunk of the film with a hidden identity! He saves the Roman Empire, which back then I guess might be the equivalent of ‘saving the world? He even becomes an icon and symbol that the people look up to. Hey, wait a minute… I remember the part Commodus got annoyed that little Lucius was play-fighting as Maximus- When little kids are pretending to be you, you’ve basically reached superhero status!
Yes but Maximus himself isn’t super-powered. He’s certainly portrayed as a hero in the movie but that to me isn’t the same as a superhero.
True. It’s superhero movies vs comic book superhero movies.
My guess is he thinks “genre movie” (yeah yeah also vague) = “superhero movie” when most people think “comic book adaptation” = “superhero movie” (things like Persepolis or Death of Stalin excepted). But on another note, out a sense of perverse masochism, I watched Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer yesterday, and it was indeed boring and lazily scripted.
Words of wisdom from the dude who made the second best Alien movie and The Adventures of Noah in Rock Monster Land.
“I hate superhero movies they’re stupid and boring but also I made a bunch already.”
Yeah, and your latest superhero movie was The Last Duel, which had the incredible superpower of creating worldwide apathy. Good job, Riddles.
“The best films are driven by the characters, and we’ll come to superheroes after this if you want, because I’ll crush it. I’ll fucking crush it. They’re fucking boring as shit,” I really don’t thing the guy who had a character die because she was too stupid to run right or left, two dumbasses who had advanced GPS mapping yet still get lost, and one of said dumbasses is terrified of a corpse that’s been dead for thousands of years but will put his face against and alien penis snake has any credence on what makes an interesting character…
Um, he’s one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, so I’d say he knows more about interesting characters than mentally unbalanced AV Club commenters ever will. No one’s coming to take your action figures, lil’ laser.
Well you could argue those characters were interesting BECAUSE they were so fucking dumb.
It would be a bad argument but you could make it. Denis Villeneuve’s career seems proof of that.
I wish I could go into meetings at work, ramble off-topic this much, and not get called on it…
In interviews for “The Last Duel” he got similarly blunt saying anybody who didn’t like it must be stupid. I’d say it makes for a more interesting interview. He’s too old to bother saying anything other than what’s on his mind.
His recent comments about Blade Runner aren’t dull. In that George Lucas did you get why people liked the film kind of way.
What about George Lucas?
He doesn’t understand what made his early movies good. Ridley Scott is in the same boat.
“He’s too old to bother saying anything other than what’s on his mind.”That’s great except for the part where the things on his mind are, well, really frigging stupid.
Retconning Deckard into being a replicant certainly is.
Really intelligent and valid
Note to brittle fanboys: “Ridley Scott has made some shitty movies” does not rebut anything he is saying here.
It’s too late, the nerds are out for Scott’s head now.
“Ridley Scott has made some shitty movies”Specifically, shitty 100 million dollar movies that serve as prequels for larger franchises.
It raises the question of whether he knows what a good script is.
His highs are very, very high, but the man has his name on a lot of movies with Batman v Superman-level scripts as well.
If someone told me I could choose to watch either a Tony Scott or a Ridley Scott movie but I couldn’t choose the specific movie, I’d pick Tony.
Yeah, I’ve seen Black Hawk Down, and I’m sure there are worse ones.But still, blind squirrels and all that.
How about “The Martian is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory”?
Despite the Academy Awa…Oh wait. Nevermind.
Sure, if The Last Duel didn’t exist, maybe you could say that. And House of Gucci looks like it will be a lot of trashy fun.
Yup, he’s not wrong. I love the MCU but I don’t think I can take another 10 years of blandly shot films. Especially since the main characters going forward won’t have the cachet that the previous ones did. At least to me. I think they’ll be a but more interesting because they’re less known so why not make the films similarly so. Let’s get fucking weird with it. Otherwise, why hire Chloe Zhao and whatnot if you’re just going to make them follow the same Marvel formula.
“Especially since the main characters going forward won’t have the cachet that the previous ones did”They have X-men and F4 now, they’ll be fine.
Did you actually see Eternals? It’s a meandering sprawl of movie which doesn’t even reveal its own plot for well over an hour. I’m really don’t think the issue was forcing Zhao to follow a formula.. When has she ever made anything “weird” for that matter? Don’t get me wrong, she’s a super talented director, but her work doesn’t exactly scream “psychedelic space opera”
My biggest thing is I don’t like Marvel’s CGI backdrops/fight scenes, and they’re so abundant.
Yep. Loved a lot of Marvel’s movies. But they’re getting less and less interesting. But I trust the producers to know when the cash cow is drying up and how to revitalise it. I reckon that end of this phase (5/7 years away, maybe 10) they’ll do a hard restart.
It kind of does when one of the movies he cites as a “great” superhero movie here (Gladiator) is one of those shitty movies.
However, him thinking that “Alien” and “Blade Runner” are superhero movies rebuts the hell out of it.
I mean, really. One of the things that made “Alien” unusual at the time was that several of its space explorers were blue collar workers. And is Deckard in “Blade Runner” in any way remarkable? (Leaving aside the “Deckard is secretly a Replicant” thing, mostly because it makes no fucking sense.)
Yeah, it does. He’s going to call out scripts? The more power he ended up getting to change scripts the worse his movies got.
Yes, but “Ridley Scott has made some great movies” does not validate anything he is saying here, either.
The guy has made some real duds but he has also made some of the best of all time. I like the big Avenger movies and some of the stand alones but I can’t imagine ever sitting down to rewatch any of them. People will be rewatching Scott’s best for decades to come. The vast majority of the superhero movies will be forgotten. That goes for the best. Much less the E list heroes they’re churning out to keep the revenue stream going. There is just no gravity to any of the comic movies. They killed off a bunch of characters only to have them come back right away. Now they have the multiverse thing going so they can even bring back the ones they claimed were dead dead. I LOVED Spider-Verse (and most Spider-Man movies) but they’re going to abuse this cash cow to keep this shit going for years.
Superhero films having extraordinary plots and characterization and cinematography and fucking burying his box office numbers however, soundly rebuts his crybaby commentary about one of the most popular genres in film today.
“Famous Director doesn’t like Pop-Movies” isn’t necessarily a shocking revelation anymore. These guys come from a different era of film. And while “that era” has its flaws and merits, we’re undeniably in a “get asses in seats” era of film.
It’s fine to like what you like, but keep in mind that these old guys probably watch movies in a different way than you do.
It feels less like the era of “getting asses in seats” and more the studios as distraught, frazzled mothers doing a constant “how about your bear? do you want your bear? You love your bear! *baby cries louder* what about your giraffe, remember Mr. giraffe? He was your favorite!” era
“That has the thing that I liked in the LAST OOOOONE!”
Followed by
“Here are all the Easter Eggs based on the product of the thing you just watched!”
He is 100% right. The superhero genre is, with only a few exceptions, a boring blight.
What he’s saying is not relevant. He’s an out of touch bitter old douche yelling at a cloud. This always happens. In 50 years you’ll have 80 year olds yelling, super hero movies were better in my day! Also, holographic screens are the worst! We need to go back to 4K TVs. Okay grandpa, time for bed.
Why do idiots like you always have the same arguments
Don’t be upset. Time just repeats itself.
Sure it does. If I were an employer looking at his resume I’d evaluate his recent work before considering if what he has to say now has any real value.
Ironically, “spotty filmography with some high points, some serious lowpoints, and a notable decline in quality over time” is an apt description of both Ridley Scott and the MCU.
I’m not sure there’s been a decline in quality in the MCU. It’s definitely spotty, but it’s been mostly consistent. It may have become more homogenous, but huge misfires like The Incredible Hulk don’t really happen anymore. Any top 5 of the MCU would likely pull from every phase so far. The current phase has been mediocre, but wait until the new Spider-Man and Doctor Strange come out.
True, but the criticism that “[Superhero movie] scripts are not any fucking good” would certainly mean a hell of a lot more if it came from someone who showed the first sign of being able to tell the difference between a good script and a bad one.
Actually it kinda does.
No, Scott’s just wrong on his own merit.Unless you agree that Gladiator and Alien are super hero movies.
I’m gonna just say it – that picture looks like Foster Brooks.
If anyone under the age of 40 knew who Foster Brooks was, this comment would have at least 50 stars…
It took me a moment. Fostor Brooks isn’t a name of thought of much in some time because I only know him from Dean Martin Roasts but looking at the pic above, it did click in my head and I see the similarity now. Ridley should lean into that look and start giving all his interviews like he’s drunk as well! As someone under 40, I’ve now given a star and done my part.
Can confirm, am under 30, no clue who Foster Brooks was.
There are dozens of us under 40 that know him! Dozens!
This would be a good place for the Captain America “I understood that reference” gif.
I thought it was a picture of Kelsey Grammer at first
The ‘70s was a really weird time for celebrities. We had Foster Brooks, who’s entire act was pretending to be drunk. Mel Tillis, who’s act was to stutter. I won’t even get started on Pink Lady and Jeff.
Mel Tillis really was a stutterer, it wasn’t an act.
I cannot but agree with this bearded filmmaker.
I’m not sure why you guys are surprised that an 83 year old filmmaker would not be interested in superhero shit.
the next director up to bat when it comes to absolutely shredding*sighs*Never change, Kinja. Never change.
I guess if “shooting naked women in the back” is a superpower, then Deckard was indeed a superhero.
LEGEND is totally awesome.
His most underrated film.
I loved Legend so, so much.
That’s the movie where Deckard’s hovercar appears in Tom Cruise’s dream??
Ridley is one of my favorite Metroid villains, but honestly I think he’s way off base here.
Kraid is actually quite supportive of the MCU.
I sure wish Ridley Scott put as much focus into character as he supposedly values into his movies, because that is consistently the weakest element of his storytelling.
Watch the Last Duel then, he’s still capable of it there.
It is easy to say that the films in any genre are shit and provide copious examples because Sturgeon’s rule has no exceptions.
Blade Runner is a sci fi noir movie, not a superhero film.
Stick to producing, Ridley.
Stick to producing
It has a pretty bad story too. Like movie is a visual masterpiece, but the entire plot is basically 20 minutes long and back loaded.
I don’t think it’s a bad story, but it does start off slow with a bunch of boilerplate noir before it really gets going.
Yah I think it really is more that the pacing, but to be honest the story only really comes together in the tears in the rain speech. Like that moment is so singularly powerful it makes up for a lot but there’s not a lot of meat till that point. Which is not to say it doesn’t work, but more of a rebuttal to Scott’s ‘bad writing’ assertion. That’s one of the main things 2049 did better then the original. That had actual detective story in it’s detective movie.
I always got the impression that Decker was half-assing his detective work throughout the original movie, because that’s the kind of work ethic you can expect from a detective who was blackmailed into taking the case.
It’s the opposite of a superhero movie. I am shocked that after 40 years, Scott still does not understand his own movie.
Raised by Wolves is good sci-fi.
It scratches the very specific sci-fi itch I have, but it wasn’t without it’s problems. The ending was weird af and I’m looking forward to another season if we get it.
I like weird but thought provoking. Not nonsensical, supernatural. The story takes place 200 years from now so there should be some things that we aren’t familiar with. 18th century people using quill and ink and coming to our time would have a hard time understanding computers or that we get our food from holes in the side of buildings while riding horseless carriages. LOL!
Ridley, first off, none of those three are superhero movies.
Second, you’re right, there are plenty of bad superhero scripts, but there are plenty of bad scripts generally.
Third, that brings us to Alien: Covenant. I’m not sure you should be throwing around complaints like these when you’ve been party to wrecking your own legacy the way you have in recent years.
On the other hand, Alien: Covenant is definitely dumb, dumb, dumb….but I don’t know if it’s guilty of being, quote “fucking boring as shit”, which is crime he charges superhero moves with.
Serious question: by Ridley’s metric, would the first Die Hard movie be considered a superhero movie then?
It’s not a new opinion, of course, but what he’s homing in on is still worth discussing as the genre only grows more popular:why don’t the superhero movies have better stories?I was thinking about this when defending Black Widow the other day. I think it’s a better female superhero movie than Wonder Woman. It just has a bad 3rd Act. But Wonder Woman has a bad 3rd Act too. And I got to thinking about just how many of these superhero movies have really bad 3rd Acts. Of all the things people complain about with comic book movies, this is an issue that is not getting enough scrutiny, as we just shrug our shoulders and line up for the next one.
Scott talks about character too, which is another thing that needs improvement for some of these. I just watched Shang-Chi and the Ten Rings new on Disney+, and I can’t tell you anything about him. I can tell you what happened to him in his life, but I’d be hard-pressed say anything about him as a person, because he was just a generic guy who can fight (and if he were female, people would call this character 1-dimensional).
Good comment. I also watched Shang Chi and enjoyed it, but am in no way yearning to see what happens to Shang next. Awkwafina was really the only memorable part for me. This is going to continue to be a problem as Disney rolls out new unknown superheroes, if they don’t build the attachment to the character then what’s the point in continuing to follow the MCU?
I just watched Shang-Chi and the Ten Rings new on Disney+, and I can’t tell you anything about him. I can tell you what happened to him in his life, but I’d be hard-pressed say anything about him as a person, because he was just a generic guy who can fight (and if he were female, people would call this character 1-dimensional).
Shang-Chi (the character) reminded me of those silent protagonists you would play as in JRPGs like Chrono Trigger or Earthbound. I was relieved he wasn’t all quippy and sarcastic, but agree that the guy was a non-factor in his own movie.
What did you think of the 3rd act in Shang Chi? I thought creatively it was a cut above a lot of other MCU movies, but it (and really the whole movie) felt overstuffed. Tony Leung did a LOT of heavy lifting when it came to elevating the movie above, idk, one of the MCU Spider-man movies (that is to say, decent but not great).
A star for the Chrono Trigger reference.
Yea, with Shang-Chi, at best I can say he likes… kareoke? But really all the personality, character hopes, dreams, fears, even growth, are more shown by Akwafina. (who I guess is an Avenger now, too?)I liked the movie okay, but the 3rd Act was a big dip. A combination of the “Hidden Elf Village”, “Doomed Hometown”, and “Save the Farm” tropes, that might have contrubuted to why it felt so overstuffed. Visually, I know the CGI-fest comes with the territory, but I wish it wasn’t coated in ugly dark clouds (Godzilla King of Monsters did this too) because the dragons and other creatures were a sight to behold. I know this is a mythical IP, but I wish they established more of that early on, before the shift, which could be a little jarring. Even in a universe with Thor and magic rings, and with Tony Leung himself essentially being immortal, it’s downplayed enough in this story that it didn’t register (probably because our hero spends the whole movie not believing him) until late, and I’m looking at a furball with two asses.
this is an issue that is not getting enough scrutinyIsn’t it? I would say it’s had so much scrutiny that it has become a piece of conventional wisdom: superhero movies (specifically MCU and DCEU) generally have weak third acts.
With Shang-Chi, I thought it was an insane move not to show him killing the guy that is supposed to constitute his whole arc.
That’s not his arc. His arc is becoming greater than the sum of his parts, not a carbon copy of one of them.
Shang-Chi was a movie about Asian immigrant parents and their Americanized children learning how to understand each other. How does killing said parent speak to that theme at all?
Sorry should have been clearer. I’m talking about the guy his father made him kill when he was younger.
Ah, that comment makes much more sense. I don’t personally think we needed to see it (and Disney sure as hell wasn’t about to depict a child murdering someone, no matter how much they deserved it), but I can respect your POV on that
I liked Shang-Chi. But it was like, four different movies at once, and it wasn’t graceful about how it smashed them together. They should’ve elided the mystical Wuxia dimension altogether, or, at least, saved it for the sequel. Shang-Chi’s a mostly street-level guy, and the best scenes were when he was fighting hand-to-hand. Which is, y’know, his main thing. Suddenly by the 3rd act: we’re in the middle of a war and there are dragons and soul stealing demons, and it’s…I dunno. I missed the fighting. I was hoping for more of that, and we didn’t get nearly enough. The fight sequences are when Shang-Chi’s personality seemed to shine. He was creative and smooth, and when hit with all the mystical stuff, he seemed passive and out of his element.
The Avengers had a solid third act, and Thor: Ragnarok had Tessa Thompson strutting out of some fireworks to Led Zeppelin, which forgives a lot. But those movies didn’t have a satisfying third act so much as climactic CGI fight scenes with a bit of panache. Mostly the movies follow the Iron Mam template of casting a charismatic character actor as the villain, and then have him disappear into a cloud of CGI shit. Wandavision couldn’t even find Kathryn Hahn something to do besides fly around shooting purple lights.
Yea, it’s quite a thing to see it happening not only in the movies, but in their shows, which technically have more time to build to climaxes a lot better. (It’s all I can do to blame COVID for how The Falcon and the Winter Soldier finishes because I refuse to believe that last episode was the plan as is)
I think the problem with superhero 3rd acts is that they always have to rush to get the big final fight in, and due to the ubiquity of the genre, the fights these days need to be getting bigger and bigger with each new movie to top the last one. Like think back to Iron Man 1. The final fight in that one is Tony basically playing defense the whole time trying desperately not to die, and he survives only by luck honestly. Or hell, go back further, in Spider-Man 1, the closest thing to a final fight is in the graveyard at the end where Peter takes a pumpkin bomb to the face and gets his ass kicked, then rallies and does a little ass kicking, then Goblin impales himself and that whole sequence takes literally less than 5 minutes (which I know because I just watched it on youtube). Flash forward to 2021: the final fight in Shang-Chi has an entire village/crime syndicate banding together to stop a bunch of CG dragon-gremlins while Shang-Chi himself fights his father and his magic rings and then later he fights a dragon atop another dragon and he uses his ten magic rings to explode the bad dragon. I haven’t seen Eternals but I’m sure it’s even crazier. The next Spidey is gonna have 6 villains so that’s gonna be fuckin bonkers. The escalation over the years has gone crazy. Third acts in superhero movies are hardly even “acts” any more, they’re just enormous fight scenes with a brief denouement.
The escalation is an interesting point on a couple of fronts, because unlike regular action movies that just worry about themselves, superhero movies seem a lot more in competition/conversation with each other. (Dark Pheonix, is rumored to have reshot their 3rd Act because it was too similar to Captain Marvel, even though they have nothing to do with each other). And in the case of the MCU in particular, their stories are literally related, so we’re looking at 25 of their action movies increasingly trying to justify power levels, and why their hero is so great, and on and on. All things that they understandably need to do, but all things that can be numbing over time.
But if Spider-Man is giving me the Sinister 6, my body is ready!
I liked the 3rd act fight in Civil War because it was more intimate, the movie had already done its mandatory huge CGI fight, and while there was CGI in the final fight it was basically just one guy in a brawl with a soon-to-be former friend and his buddy over an emotionally charged revelation as there were no more bads to fight.
We also get T’Challa and Nemo, which is a lovely scene and crucially important for establishing T’Challa’s character.I miss Chadwick Boseman so much.
Agree but… it’s what’s expected. If the third act was a sit down discussion or even some hugely emotional climax you’d get a lot of people complaining that the end was a bit meh. It’s just part of superhero stories, the same way that even great rom coms have similar endings, or whodunnits, or westerns.
The one MCU movie other than Civil War that bucks the third act curse is Doctor Strange. There are plenty of Inception-styled cgi pyrotechnics, to be sure, but the final victory comes down to Strange making a personal gambit with a god, along with annoying the hell out of him. I’ve always kinda enjoyed that Strange’s ultimate superpower was that he was a bit of an annoying asshole, which of course was the power that was in him all along.
Doctor Strange is one of the better ones for sure. I really liked where they took that, and not only is it a great showcase of marrying his character with his tactics, but it’s a good example of a superhero movie building to its best scene, which is how a good third act is supposed to work. (more or less)
Oddly, most of the DC movies don’t have this problem: Shazam, Aquaman, and both Wonder Woman movies manage to retain personal stakes adjacent to the cgi laced 3rd acts. Of course, there are other issues on the DC side…
Civil War kind of does, a bit? I think it’s stands out for having a final battle that’s about actual character conflict, rather than the “we must get the mcguffin before the explodey thing explodes” that bookends almost every other Marvel movie.
There are exceptions – Logan and The Dark Knight come to mind, and within the MCU The Winter Soldier was at least somewhat more interesting, even if it did devolve into the expected CGI explosions. In general, though, those stand out in part because they are indeed the exceptions.
The lack of characterization in Shang Chi is a real problem. He has no personality in that movie at all. Without Awkwafina for some comedic relief it would have been even worse.
to be honest people had the same opinion abt Thor and to some extent captain America. Shang Chi was like all marvel movies, just an intro to the character and some world building. Not everyone is RDJr that they’re gonna leave an impression right away. I think the movie did a good job with introducing the main character and this new part of the MCU but agree that Shang Chi as a character wasn’t really developed. However I felt the same was art Wanda Maximoff un til she got her own show this year.
I feel that the problem with Shang Chi was that you can’t see the candle next to the bonfire.Simu Liu being the candle, completely overshadowed by the bonfire that is Tony Leung.
Sure, let’s make this a news story every 3 months. What’s the point anymore. Are people that desperate for headlines and clicks to just ask the same people the same shit to get the same answers all the time? Jesus.
Although it’s pretty fun look at how Sir Ridley Scott speaks – I’m not sure what phrasing I expected from an 83-year old English knight, but “fucking boring as shit” and “I’ll fucking crush it” were not it!
I wouldn’t expect him to talk like that at all, given he looks like Colonel Sanders.
Hey, 183 comments in one day is 183 comments in one day
The best films are driven by the charactersI don’t think he’s wrong about this at all, and it applies to books and television as well. But hey, Brandon Sanderson’s sales have led the fantasy genre for years now, and even he admits outright his characters can be rather thin. People watch superhero movies and read page turner books because they’re easy and relaxing; they’re an escape to turn our brains off which is especially what we often go to the movies for.They also have been in a sweet spot for the last couple of decades since they translated really well into foreign sales; who needs plot when you can watch things blow up prettily with simple explanations? I suspect that aspect may be coming to a close too now, though; the Chinese government’s reaction to Shang-Chi is just one new angle to the culture war. More importantly, when this fall’s CCP-sponsored The Battle at Lake Changjin is now the second highest grossing film in Chinese history so far – something like $870 million in two months – and focuses on the righteousness of killing ‘Muricans in a truly just and righteous war in Korea (along with the ultimate marketing technique of arresting those who might not agree with this conclusion), I have a hunch that Hollywood is going to run into more and more problems drawing Chinese audiences into theaters for the latest superhero film.
Yy just described the process for watching a bad superhero film like the mcu films not plans batman, taimis spider man or logan wich are actually good films
Directors should have to call out specific movies when they do this, start some real director on director beef.
I wonder if people even know what “superhero” movies mean as a genre. I’m also amazed that anyone thinks Gladiator is good, much less great.
What does it mean? I think of them as movies about people who wear tights, have special abilities, and fight crime.
Though I can barely remember the last MCU movie where the heroes “fought crime” as such. Even Spider-Man mostly has other things on his mind. I suppose wiping out 50% of all living things might technically be a crime?
In some jurisdictions perhaps.
I’m amazed by the contrarian backlash that tries to frame Gladiator as anything less than good.
“…Missed it by that much.”
Gladiator sucks, has sucked, and always will suck
Old man shouts at cloud that won’t give him all the money any more.Cloud sighs.
Cloud sighs another fanboy isiot is using a cloud to make disparaging remarks about the elderly
I’m one of like 17 people in America that paid to see THE LAST DUEL, and it ruled, but the guy behind ALIEN: COVENANT calling anyone else’s script stupid is REALLY something.
Haven’t seen Gladiator, but what makes both Alien and Blade Runner compelling is precisely that their protagonists are not super-heroes, and have to make do with their ordinary human abilities. Indeed, Decker fails to defeat Batty, his time just runs out.
Let’s all gripe about colorful, straight-forward mass entertainment, so we can feel superior to the plebes.
I feel like the brilliance of Alien is that Ripley is very much not a “super” hero. She’s a regular person. She is tough, smart, resourceful, she has grit in spades — but she is no less vulnerable than you or I. One of the most iconic set pieces takes place when she’s in her underwear, underscoring just how vulnerable she is. If Ripley was a “super” hero with super powers Alien would be a much less interesting movie.Decker, similarly, in vulnerable, human*, and survives by wits and luck going toe-to-toe against enhanced cyborgs who could rip him limb from limb. He’s in less desperate straits than Ripley, but he certainly does not have super powers. Gladiator probably comes closest. Maximus seems to have what is arguably “super” human fighting ability, more so than any individual human realistically should. *you heard me
THE MARTIAN is just like the MCU films: straightforward, totally predictable, glossy if not particularly artful, and very very popular.
Also: as long as entries like THE fucking COUNSELOR exist, I’ll pick and choose my Scott films very cautiously, while most superhero films are at least 95% likely to entertain.
The Martian: Iron Man in space?
Wow, 95% seems steep.
He’s such a cunt.
Weaver in Alien isn’t a super hero. She is a final girl. She does great in the role and it’s a great movie. Aliens is when she becomes a super hero and Ridley didn’t make that one. Decker isn’t a super hero who gets his ass kicked to subvert the genre. He is a noir detective getting his ass kicked because that’s what happens to noir detectives.
Newsflash: Some movies are boring. Ho-hum…
HAHAHAHAHA! damn, Ridley was gotdamn brtual. He is right though. They have gotten boring. It’s the same thing over and over again. no kind of changeup. I do miss the era of creative filmmaking. now it’s all blockbuster superhero movies. it sells but it does get boring. but you got the marks that’s gonna get mad at him. a lot of people been feeling the way he does about them. these movies doesn’t rely warrant repeat views wither. once you see them, that’s it. nothing to break down. it is what it is when it comes to these movies. but damn he was brutal with it. way to go, Ridley
I do miss the era of creative filmmaking. now it’s all blockbuster superhero moviesYes, all filmmaking was creative before superheroes came around, and now the 6 or 7 a year are apparently enough for people to forget about the hundreds of other films made and to forget to start their sentences with Capital Letters.
I like Blade Runner, but it’s a pretty boring movie.
I’ve generally had a lot of difficulty connecting to Ridley Scott’s work over the years, so for me this really is that Clickhole piece “Heartbreaking: Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point”
Look, I like plenty of Scotts movies, and Superhero films are definitely getting stale, but to call them boring as shit? Naw man, this ain’t that.
This is rich coming from the director of Prometheus and Alien: Covenant.
If those films had any interesting concepts, then they were presented in such a boring way that I’m struggling to remember them.
I don’t think he knows what a superhero is. But hey, he’s Ridley Scott, so whatever.
First of all it’s Sir Ridley Scott. Second why bother asking him, Scorsese, etc. About a genre they don’t care about. May as well ask them what they think about Rom-Coms.
DEADLINE: I
was asking what you learned from Kubrick’s approach to Napoleon, and it seems
like you’ve broken off a piece of the story instead of taking the whole bite
like Kubrick didThat was the question that spurred the first mention of superheroes. Nary a cape or super power reference to be found beforehand. Mike Fleming did then ask one or two questions in response, but following-up to something a subject says is one of the things a journalist does.And in America, we don’t bother with the “Sir” title unless we’re making fun of the pomposity.
I always make fun of the pomposity of the title and will always refer to every knight of the Old Empire as Sir.
They’re boring and emotionally devoid of substance if you haven’t already emotionally invested in them as a child, or young adult. The success of these movies is predicated, to a certain degree on nostalgia and the ability for Marvel (and to a lesser degree, DC)to successfully evolve and deploy that nostalgia in a way that matches the tone and experience of the now adult audience. But if you never cared about Peter Parker and his connection to Tony Stark, or for that matter, Dr. Strange, then yeah, these movies would be boring and confusing to a certain degree—just an above average exercise in visual effects. I’d argue that the scripts and execution of Infinity War and Endgame did just about as well, if not better than any modern, action franchise at creating emotional stakes for its characters, but those movies are STILL underpinned by existing expectation. But for those of us who are invested, man they are emotional roller coasters matched by a technical fidelity and overall production environment that is just massive and impressive in its own right. So in other words, haters gonna hate….And to Ridley Scott, in particular all I have to say is, Raised by Wolves. I don’t know what the fuck that shit was… It was a fucking stinker.
All these filmmakers do have the right to complain about how bland superhero movies are, specifically the MCU since that seems to be the primary target. And, they have valid complaints; the MCU has become very formulaic. But, if they really don’t like superhero movies, then why don’t they make the kind of superhero movie that they wanna see? Do something interesting with the genre? (James Gunn gets a pass since he directed Super, wrote The Specials, and produced Brightburn.)
“Harrison Ford was one superhero but everyone was confused because he got the shit beaten out of him at the end by the other superhero, who they thought was the bad guy, but turned out to be a good guy.”Ridley, you just described the plot to every superhero teamup ever made. Even Batman V Superman follows that formula.
Also, who the hell sat through Blade Runner and thought, “Yes, clearly Roy Batty, the escaped slave who only wants to avoid a miserable and premature death, is an evil villain not unlike Thanos or The Joker.” Come on, man.
Really terrible and infantile breakdown
Can we also ask him why Deckard gets the shit kicked out of him by every replicant he meets* but is, apparently, a replicant himself?* So we don’t see it, but I’m betting Rachael would kick his ass too.
This line of thought continues to be exasperating. Sometimes movies can be challenging and make you think or feel or question the world around you; sometimes it is a fun escape for a few hours. Saying that superhero movies somehow don’t count because they are the latter is incredibly myopic. If someone sees Ant-Man and that inspires them to be a better person and help their neighbor carry groceries or whatever, that is *probably* a larger net good for society than that same person watching The Seventh Seal and contemplating the meaning of existence alone for several hours. Furthermore this idea that if its not “real cinema” it must be crap just feeds into this purity test/us v them crap that has gotten us such fun things as Trump, Brexit, the unrest in Hong Kong, etc.
Why does this get digital ink when Paul Thomas Anderson says he lives in a pro-Marvel household and liked Venom 2 didn’t get as much? Everyone stop feuding, Ridley’s just ticked his previous movie got the crap kicked out of it by 2 Superhero movies.
Also that’s not music these days it’s just noise.
My theory is that the issue is that superhero movies are essential a sub-genre of movies that got too big and became a genre. Within sub-genres, the rules are pretty strict and structure rigid. Which is fine when you’re aiming at a sub-section of the audience. Genres have a lot more flexibility. You can have martial arts action movies, gritty action movies, comedy action, etc. If superhero movies are to survive they have to embrace being a genre and welcome more flexibility. Which some movies are (Logan, Into the Spiderverse) but the tentpole films aren’t doing this.
Is it me or the “movie director has said something about movies” articles are getting simpler? I honestly expected some more overall critical analysis from someone as heady as Ridley Scott…
NEWSWIREYou don’t have to make or see movies you think are boring as shit.
I’d argue that Logan is pretty good as far as story and a non-failed 3rd act, but it is a Western. The problem with discussing genre is often times people don’t grasp what they’re talking about, like Ridley calling Alien a superhero movie.
gladiator sucks.that is all.
He’s not wrong.
He’s not wrong.
I guess it occurred to me after actively not watching any Marvel movie since Endgame that I’m pretty bored with the genre. Quip, look cool, fight, win, quip, punch punch punch, lose, brood, quip, look cool, punch punch punch, victory, quip.
I do not think Ridley Scott knows what the word “superhero” means.
I feel like the culture has collective amnesia about Blade Runner.Decker rapes Rachel! No one ever talks about this!
Riiiibley… uh… Scaaaoooootch.
I generally like the Marvel movies all right but Ragnorock is the only one I really loved. Anyway, I fell asleep during the last two Marvel movies I saw (Black Widow and Shang-Chi) so maybe ol’ Ridley has a point.
This whole “superhero movies suck” thing that these old punks keep spouting like they made art films. LMAO. Gladiator is not as great as it was made out to be and while Ridley Scott made some kick ass films as I grew up its not like he was surrounded by contemporaries who were making fine art films. Superhero movies are entertaining and yeah for the most part they’re formula but they’re making money for a reason. Audiences enjoy them, many of us grew up with those characters and ultimately it seems these directors who have such a bone to pick with superhero movies are mad they’re not in on it. Make an actual superhero flick Ridley then come spout your BS
Mr. Scott is spot-on. The Marvel & SH movies are pure crap, as are the low-brow losers who flock to them.