The martian, last duel, and house of gucci are actually felt like something made with heart and passion, his latest works is actually gold after gold after gold to me...
Ridley didn't say BR2049 is too long and too slow - he's answering why it wasn't as financially successful as it deserved to be. And then added that he would have paced it differently. He's not wrong either.
Its notable Ridley NEVER sang any praise for 2049 ... its quite telling that he felt disappointed with Denis Villeneuve's movie ... I myself felt Denis Vill made a very inferior sequel .. there's a lot of laziness in the movie disguised by big empty spaces which appeals to the shallow audience who would wow at anything "big and spacious" as a form of grandeur ... but its so easy to film big empty spaces, I can do with in a split second with my iphone too ...
@@88feji To a decent degree I understand exactly what you mean and very much agree. Although I do think Villenueve is making very intentional minimalistic choices as an aesthetic approach. His contemplatively sparse compositions of selected iconography does achieve a deliberate tone of grounded grandeur. But yes, Ridley is far more pragmatic at making his more technically sophisticated atmospherics inform a narrative momentum rather than be ponderously indulgent in vain vie for prestige. Then again, fetishistic manipulation of sensorial information to manufacture a psychological evocation is an essential element of all great Cinema. As long as the method is evidently effective, it must not be wrong. Not in regards to Its consumption, anyway. Though the cooking may be going through arbitrary stages at far too great expense just to present such a simple cuisine. But I'm that guy who uses this precise argument to defend the sophistication of Michael Bay's filmmaking and denounce the lazy ease of something like "Dogma 95" or similar ilk to which glib hipster snobs snarkly cream in their culottes for. I truly think Bay would have a most breezy time competently replicating the autuered style of Lars Von Trier than any hope whatsoever of that happening the other way around. Because it's actually very simple to do grimey verité. Or theoretically for that matter to do what even Kubrick did with sterile symmetrical tableus. Or Malick with his editorial vignettes of nearly formless mosaic patchworks of pantomiming against lush lensing. Sure, it requires a good eye - but it also helps if you can hire an elite cinematographer and a plethora of prominant acting talent to eagerly venture throwing out the script for improvisation with you, so you can break every rule of camera direction and structured editorial geography for hodgepodging their meandering posing through nature later with some poetic voiceover and pretty music and present it as high art. And this comes from someone who still regards Malick's first 5 movies as masterpieces. Problem is he made an orthodoxy out of being unorthodox - which is eventually self defeating as the method becomes tediously obvious, and only proves the superiority of classical formalism's strengths. But anyway, outside of writing wistfully existential angst in narration, Bay could shoot a Malick movie every bit as visually impressive at 1/20th of the time and likely cost, lol. Due to the absolue fact that Bay is a virtuoso at minutely commanding various simulateous complex setups and departments of visually stunning compsitions on astronomically populated productions at record setting pace and cost efficiency - with regularity. Not unlike Ridley and Tony Scott. Every penny showing up on screen like a dime. Certainly they share a similar background of many years making sleek award winning commericals before feature films - and have an automatic ingenuity for pulling together atmospheric ingredients just for presenting the recipe of each individual shot to have the most palate impact possible. There is a very astute reason why Bay earns acclaim from peers like Spielberg, Cameron, Stone, Scott and Nolan - because they know how immensely difficult it is to do what Bay does better than all his imitators. Not unlike Sergio Leone, where no copycat could ever quite make muster because they just didn't have that level of vision and commitment to it. Villenueve on the other hand spends way too much money just to produce purposefully minimal results because he's so occupied about being precious for sake of preciousness, in my opinion. Fincher has gone down this rabbit hole of indulging inordinate amounts of time to superluous tweaking and reliance of expensive post processes for some reason too, yet all his most amazing work was before he was allowed to cavalierly waste - carte blanche. That said, I do like Denis' films and think many of them are among the best contemporary cinema has offered over the last decade. But he's no Sir Ridley Scott!
my absolute fav director. Blade Runner is my fav movie, then i guess, Gladiator and then Alien... it's pretty amazing that my top 3 fav movies are ALL by him!!! (I'm 46 and have watched thousands of movies)
My template for how to make a great action scene is from the Russian film Alexander Nevsky (1937) where the epic and damn slow build up to the battle on the ice is more intense than the actual battle itself, it establishes the battlefield, it establishes the two waring factions, it even establishes how the feel while the wait as the enemy approches... just simply a masterpiece
I totally agree with you! I discovered this movie because Conan The Barbarian was inspired by this,and so I like both! In the battle on the ice, there is no action during several minutes, no words, the music and plans introduce the battle. However in the 21th century there is not films like this, all is speed, many dialogues, etc...I prefer older films
2049 was too slow... Not necessarily too long. It didn't have great pacing. Scott was right. 2049 dragged out scenes that shouldn't have been dragged out. It felt a little too self indulgent. And I liked the film. But the criticism is warranted.
I need to watch it again before I comment too much, but part of it being slow lets you soak up the atmosphere. Ghost in the Shell (anime movie) did this, also. It did have better pacing, though, but honestly, I wouldn't have minded some longer, atmospheric shots.
I'm not sure why people seem to comment about everything except the point you are making in this video: movies are fast paced these days. You made this point very clear in your video by comparing the shots from different eras.
I like that Endgame starts off slow then gets faster in each subsequent act. Balance is great, but fast or slow pace can also be executed well such as in Goodfellas & The Sixth Sense respectively.
He kind of is when he says he’d have taken out half an hour. That’s him directly stating that the movie failed on that degree, even if it was just on a commercial basis. But if he’s saying he would’ve taken out half an hour to appease casual moviegoers then he’s admitting to creative vandalism, sorry chump
@@tobylerone4285 Chump? So much for agree to disagree. You have to give every response with a personal insult. Please don’t be like every disgruntled film fanboy out there. You’ll never get anywhere sir with that attitude.
The answer to this question has everything to do with the evolution of technology since movies like Alien and Blade Runner, and how that technology has affected the world of marketing and advertising; social media, in particular. Not only has the technology resulted in audiences with shallower awareness and shorter attention spans, but for producers and directors it has resulted in making movies *as commercial products,* with a thousand different metrics and multiple outcomes in mind, all quite beyond the film itself. ←And this has everything to do with making movies in “the system” that is governed by time and money.
Love this! I've been thinking about this for a while, especially as I've become more and more fascinated by spirituality and figures like Osho. He's a master storyteller yet he takes his time and urges you to respect silence. One minute he's offending you, the next moment he makes you laugh or flips your whole reality on it's head.
Films as BR2049 are for the fans the audience that first of all saw the original and also that are into Cyberpunk stuff. Otherwise it will be boring or confusing.
I like long movies, however, most of the time the criticism of them being too long is warranted. For example, Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005), Zach Snyder's Justice League, Blade Runner 2049, The Godfather, Part II, etc.
Extremely well explained and observed. The big change came with MTV, which created fast cut, attention grabbing music videos, this coupled with TV ad's created the idea that everything had to be fast. If you look at Tarkovsky Solaris, or Kubrick's 2001 / Barry Lyndon, you would be hard pressed to to get a film made like those these days. There is little or no importance given to mood and atmosphere. It's all information and everything but 'feel'. There are a few exceptions NWF does an amazing job on Drive but misses the boat on Neon Demon. Bladerunner 1982 is fatally flawed plot wise, but remains the greater 'atmospheric / mood' masterpiece of all time OMHO.
Great Video, I think the key is knowing what pacing works for each film. Like Black Hawk Down & Gladiator were made right after each other but feel like two distinctive artistic expressions with pacing to match the story
Great video as always Panwa. I’ve always said Scott was on and off. His career is like blinking eyes beautiful in one moment and cold and closed in another. I hope he can pull through and make some great films in the future.
Let's hope so! I think it many ways Scott's films are only as good as their script which is probably why I really enjoy the Martian and All the Money in the World :)
I agree. But he is still my favorite director of all time. I guess no artist can make everything into a masterpiece. For Bladerunner he was in mourning and this was the result. Masterpiece.
i havent seen neather but the snyders cut for justice leage seems to solve exactly that problem and takes its time to establish the atmosphere (it is also 4 hours instead of 2) scott was talking about why it didn't make a great box office but i'm not sure i think he didn't imply that he didn't like it but more that it doesn't sell well, just like the original BR he made however great analysis, and indeed he seems to rush more the pacing of his movies
I do think Riley Scott was able to do some masterpieces due to the evolved artists team, and not by himself or he-s master vision, and this team was lost after Blade Runner, The Legend, Alien! also I noticed he-s movies start to get worst when he started working as a Producer.
Lol, i think pacing is important. You do want to keep it flowing like water. Puting a damn in the river just so you can get a sense of atmosphere has the risk of causing you to be bored. Atmosphere does not equal long runtime. A good director has to be able to sense how his movie feels. Long movies can be good and atmospheric. And so can fast movies. Its the ability of the director thats able to sense what is necessary.Infinity war does have great atmosphere in my opinion. It’s not a rushed mess. Napoleon is a rushed mess. In my opinion, the problem with Ridley Scott now is simply he’s lost his edge. He’s been directing for so long and also suffered a tragedy with his brother’s suicide, that I think that affects his ability to direct somewhat. Which is why nowadays he’s a very hit or miss director.
Movies like Infinity War feel way too commercial. Seriously, it feels like the film is way too scared to bore the audience. The establishing shots don't even feel like they go on for 5 seconds and too much tension is undercut with silly jokes.
No such thing as too commercial when it comes to superhero movies, and the "silly jokes" is in the tradition of 80s action heroes like Indiana Jones & John McClane.
Good video. I agree that Scott's process has almost turned assembly line esque. His movies are still good but it feels like he just cranks them out now. That being said, House of Gucci was very enjoyable.
"They some times feel more like manufactured products than artistic endevours"... im confused by the comment since it seems you like that Infinity War Marvel movie which is by definition a commercial cinematic product with profit as the main reason for it's existence. Never the less, a video worthwhile to watch like most of things you sir produce. Thank you!
He was just being polite in regard to his comment on Infinity War. It's a garbage movie. Anybody smart enough to discern what makes Scott's movies great is likely aware just how garbage it is.
I think your statement is a fallacy: "that came from the director of Gladiator'... etc". BR2049 is, in every shot and every momentum WAY toooo long: there's too little to say, but it insist to be too deep without a strong purpose: BR2049 is just long because Denis' desire of make it too long. "Gladiator" or "Kingdom..." had TOO MUCH to say, and even in their 3 hour running time both films doesn't FEEL long at all. BR2049 definetely feels too long. On the other side, I think your concepts about atmosphere and your conclusion is effective: RS films from "White Squad" to this day are notoriously inconsistent.
You bring up a good point though. Kingdom of Heaven's director's cut actually feels shorter than its theatrical cut because of its excellent pacing. That pacing gets all fucked up in the theatrical cut which makes it seem like it goes on forever. Personally, I don't think 2049 is paced badly nor do I think it's long. But maybe it's just because every frame has is a work of art and most of them have loads of detail. That's more of a preference probably.
Blade runner 2049 was written by a stupid child with crayons. One of the worst movies i have ever seen. Ryan gosling was great though. Worst villian, worst back story, worst use of harrison ford even worse than star wars disney style.
Bladerunner 2049 had weak ideas, The story wasn't compelling at all and it wasnt even sci to compared to the first season of Westworld or even the arrival. If you engineer machines to reproduce, then it's not a miracle when they reproduce, it's just design. Also all the action was terrible
@@grey.fox. you don’t know if it’s design though lol you’re pretending like it was obvious tyrell did it because of design. It’s like you expect tyrell is creating west world type characters of sandbox design when it’s more complicated than that. Sometimes things that are designed become unexpectedly different and Wallace is trying to get to how that happened.. K is hoping he is that difference the whole time and acts as a Trojan horse to get the real miracle reunited with her father. Compelling and very sci fi.
The martian, last duel, and house of gucci are actually felt like something made with heart and passion, his latest works is actually gold after gold after gold to me...
@@toask2576 Ridley Scott overrated? Please, take your brain medicine before typing comments.
Ridley didn't say BR2049 is too long and too slow - he's answering why it wasn't as financially successful as it deserved to be. And then added that he would have paced it differently. He's not wrong either.
Well he's not wrong. It might have had more success if shorter. But I think the film is perfect at it is with that slow pace.
@@Nicotine46 Because the film is basically carried by its atmosphere and soundtrack. That's exactly why the pacing is perfect
"Too long. I'd have taken out half an hour."
Its notable Ridley NEVER sang any praise for 2049 ... its quite telling that he felt disappointed with Denis Villeneuve's movie ... I myself felt Denis Vill made a very inferior sequel .. there's a lot of laziness in the movie disguised by big empty spaces which appeals to the shallow audience who would wow at anything "big and spacious" as a form of grandeur ... but its so easy to film big empty spaces, I can do with in a split second with my iphone too ...
@@88feji
To a decent degree I understand exactly what you mean and very much agree.
Although I do think Villenueve is making very intentional minimalistic choices as an aesthetic approach. His contemplatively sparse compositions of selected iconography does achieve a deliberate tone of grounded grandeur. But yes, Ridley is far more pragmatic at making his more technically sophisticated atmospherics inform a narrative momentum rather than be ponderously indulgent in vain vie for prestige.
Then again, fetishistic manipulation of sensorial information to manufacture a psychological evocation is an essential element of all great Cinema. As long as the method is evidently effective, it must not be wrong. Not in regards to Its consumption, anyway. Though the cooking may be going through arbitrary stages at far too great expense just to present such a simple cuisine.
But I'm that guy who uses this precise argument to defend the sophistication of Michael Bay's filmmaking and denounce the lazy ease of something like "Dogma 95" or similar ilk to which glib hipster snobs snarkly cream in their culottes for. I truly think Bay would have a most breezy time competently replicating the autuered style of Lars Von Trier than any hope whatsoever of that happening the other way around. Because it's actually very simple to do grimey verité. Or theoretically for that matter to do what even Kubrick did with sterile symmetrical tableus. Or Malick with his editorial vignettes of nearly formless mosaic patchworks of pantomiming against lush lensing. Sure, it requires a good eye - but it also helps if you can hire an elite cinematographer and a plethora of prominant acting talent to eagerly venture throwing out the script for improvisation with you, so you can break every rule of camera direction and structured editorial geography for hodgepodging their meandering posing through nature later with some poetic voiceover and pretty music and present it as high art. And this comes from someone who still regards Malick's first 5 movies as masterpieces. Problem is he made an orthodoxy out of being unorthodox - which is eventually self defeating as the method becomes tediously obvious, and only proves the superiority of classical formalism's strengths. But anyway, outside of writing wistfully existential angst in narration, Bay could shoot a Malick movie every bit as visually impressive at 1/20th of the time and likely cost, lol. Due to the absolue fact that Bay is a virtuoso at minutely commanding various simulateous complex setups and departments of visually stunning compsitions on astronomically populated productions at record setting pace and cost efficiency - with regularity. Not unlike Ridley and Tony Scott. Every penny showing up on screen like a dime. Certainly they share a similar background of many years making sleek award winning commericals before feature films - and have an automatic ingenuity for pulling together atmospheric ingredients just for presenting the recipe of each individual shot to have the most palate impact possible. There is a very astute reason why Bay earns acclaim from peers like Spielberg, Cameron, Stone, Scott and Nolan - because they know how immensely difficult it is to do what Bay does better than all his imitators. Not unlike Sergio Leone, where no copycat could ever quite make muster because they just didn't have that level of vision and commitment to it.
Villenueve on the other hand spends way too much money just to produce purposefully minimal results because he's so occupied about being precious for sake of preciousness, in my opinion. Fincher has gone down this rabbit hole of indulging inordinate amounts of time to superluous tweaking and reliance of expensive post processes for some reason too, yet all his most amazing work was before he was allowed to cavalierly waste - carte blanche. That said, I do like Denis' films and think many of them are among the best contemporary cinema has offered over the last decade. But he's no Sir Ridley Scott!
my absolute fav director.
Blade Runner is my fav movie, then i guess, Gladiator and then Alien... it's pretty amazing that my top 3 fav movies are ALL by him!!! (I'm 46 and have watched thousands of movies)
My template for how to make a great action scene is from the Russian film Alexander Nevsky (1937) where the epic and damn slow build up to the battle on the ice is more intense than the actual battle itself, it establishes the battlefield, it establishes the two waring factions, it even establishes how the feel while the wait as the enemy approches... just simply a masterpiece
I totally agree with you! I discovered this movie because Conan The Barbarian was inspired by this,and so I like both!
In the battle on the ice, there is no action during several minutes, no words, the music and plans introduce the battle.
However in the 21th century there is not films like this, all is speed, many dialogues, etc...I prefer older films
2049 was too slow... Not necessarily too long. It didn't have great pacing. Scott was right. 2049 dragged out scenes that shouldn't have been dragged out. It felt a little too self indulgent. And I liked the film. But the criticism is warranted.
I need to watch it again before I comment too much, but part of it being slow lets you soak up the atmosphere. Ghost in the Shell (anime movie) did this, also. It did have better pacing, though, but honestly, I wouldn't have minded some longer, atmospheric shots.
I'm not even sure he was criticising it maybe he just meant that's why it didn't do well at the box office
I love Ridley Scott
My favorite director.
@@Nicotine46 you tripping bud he has like three good movies
@@tobylerone4285 Lol is that so? He has at least 10 excellent movies and a lot of good ones
I worship the man🤣🤣❤️❤️ he is pretty great!!!
I'm not sure why people seem to comment about everything except the point you are making in this video: movies are fast paced these days. You made this point very clear in your video by comparing the shots from different eras.
I like that Endgame starts off slow then gets faster in each subsequent act. Balance is great, but fast or slow pace can also be executed well such as in Goodfellas & The Sixth Sense respectively.
Sir the question asked to Scott was “why did it underperform”? He’s not saying it’s wrong to be long or slow. He’s saying millennials won’t wait.
Exactly.
Because millennials are the only moviegoers in the world?
He kind of is when he says he’d have taken out half an hour. That’s him directly stating that the movie failed on that degree, even if it was just on a commercial basis. But if he’s saying he would’ve taken out half an hour to appease casual moviegoers then he’s admitting to creative vandalism, sorry chump
@@tobylerone4285 Chump? So much for agree to disagree. You have to give every response with a personal insult. Please don’t be like every disgruntled film fanboy out there. You’ll never get anywhere sir with that attitude.
Bro, the original Blade Runner performed pretty much the same way at the box office. I'm sure the movie goers in 1982 weren't millennials.
The answer to this question has everything to do with the evolution of technology since movies like Alien and Blade Runner, and how that technology has affected the world of marketing and advertising; social media, in particular. Not only has the technology resulted in audiences with shallower awareness and shorter attention spans, but for producers and directors it has resulted in making movies *as commercial products,* with a thousand different metrics and multiple outcomes in mind, all quite beyond the film itself. ←And this has everything to do with making movies in “the system” that is governed by time and money.
Love this! I've been thinking about this for a while, especially as I've become more and more fascinated by spirituality and figures like Osho. He's a master storyteller yet he takes his time and urges you to respect silence. One minute he's offending you, the next moment he makes you laugh or flips your whole reality on it's head.
Films as BR2049 are for the fans the audience that first of all saw the original and also that are into Cyberpunk stuff. Otherwise it will be boring or confusing.
the problem is movies aren't budgeted that way. They're budgeted to make millions or billions.
Well Blade Runner 2049 isn't exactly short.
I like long movies, however, most of the time the criticism of them being too long is warranted. For example, Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005), Zach Snyder's Justice League, Blade Runner 2049, The Godfather, Part II, etc.
I agree about infinity war
It's not length that matters, it's pace.
Extremely well explained and observed. The big change came with MTV, which created fast cut, attention grabbing music videos, this coupled with TV ad's created the idea that everything had to be fast. If you look at Tarkovsky Solaris, or Kubrick's 2001 / Barry Lyndon, you would be hard pressed to to get a film made like those these days. There is little or no importance given to mood and atmosphere. It's all information and everything but 'feel'. There are a few exceptions NWF does an amazing job on Drive but misses the boat on Neon Demon. Bladerunner 1982 is fatally flawed plot wise, but remains the greater 'atmospheric / mood' masterpiece of all time OMHO.
Neon Demon is way better than Drive
Efficient spelling wrong
Great Video, I think the key is knowing what pacing works for each film. Like Black Hawk Down & Gladiator were made right after each other but feel like two distinctive artistic expressions with pacing to match the story
Great video as always Panwa. I’ve always said Scott was on and off. His career is like blinking eyes beautiful in one moment and cold and closed in another. I hope he can pull through and make some great films in the future.
Let's hope so! I think it many ways Scott's films are only as good as their script which is probably why I really enjoy the Martian and All the Money in the World :)
Absolutely agree with 2049. If it was shorter it would be even better.
I agree. But he is still my favorite director of all time. I guess no artist can make everything into a masterpiece. For Bladerunner he was in mourning and this was the result. Masterpiece.
Someone can make a "why context matters" video essay on the first few minutes of this video
The shortcomings of "The Counselor" are strictly Cormick McCarthy's.
Well that’s just not true
@@jims7383
Afraid so. Dude's a hack. Tries way too hard to be cute.
i havent seen neather but the snyders cut for justice leage seems to solve exactly that problem and takes its time to establish the atmosphere (it is also 4 hours instead of 2)
scott was talking about why it didn't make a great box office but i'm not sure i think he didn't imply that he didn't like it but more that it doesn't sell well, just like the original BR he made
however great analysis, and indeed he seems to rush more the pacing of his movies
The Counselor is such a good movie!
I do think Riley Scott was able to do some masterpieces due to the evolved artists team, and not by himself or he-s master vision, and this team was lost after Blade Runner, The Legend, Alien! also I noticed he-s movies start to get worst when he started working as a Producer.
Nothing happened to Ridley Scott, he makes back to back movies every other year
Lol, i think pacing is important. You do want to keep it flowing like water. Puting a damn in the river just so you can get a sense of atmosphere has the risk of causing you to be bored. Atmosphere does not equal long runtime. A good director has to be able to sense how his movie feels. Long movies can be good and atmospheric. And so can fast movies. Its the ability of the director thats able to sense what is necessary.Infinity war does have great atmosphere in my opinion. It’s not a rushed mess. Napoleon is a rushed mess. In my opinion, the problem with Ridley Scott now is simply he’s lost his edge. He’s been directing for so long and also suffered a tragedy with his brother’s suicide, that I think that affects his ability to direct somewhat. Which is why nowadays he’s a very hit or miss director.
Final Cut BladeRunner, and 2049 are both masterpieces
Movies like Infinity War feel way too commercial. Seriously, it feels like the film is way too scared to bore the audience. The establishing shots don't even feel like they go on for 5 seconds and too much tension is undercut with silly jokes.
I respectfully disagree, in my opinion
No such thing as too commercial when it comes to superhero movies, and the "silly jokes" is in the tradition of 80s action heroes like Indiana Jones & John McClane.
Good video. I agree that Scott's process has almost turned assembly line esque. His movies are still good but it feels like he just cranks them out now. That being said, House of Gucci was very enjoyable.
You can’t compare a marvel movie to Ridley Scott films, you lose your argument once you do that.
well he did make G.I. Jane...
started at the top of the quality chain and worked down.
"They some times feel more like manufactured products than artistic endevours"...
im confused by the comment since it seems you like that Infinity War Marvel movie which is by definition a commercial cinematic product with profit as the main reason for it's existence.
Never the less, a video worthwhile to watch like most of things you sir produce. Thank you!
Thanks for the comment! I do enjoy Infinity War but it is nothing compared to something like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy :)
He was just being polite in regard to his comment on Infinity War. It's a garbage movie. Anybody smart enough to discern what makes Scott's movies great is likely aware just how garbage it is.
Ridley Scott has always been hit and miss.
Genuinely brilliant director, though often hamstrung by poor choice of material.
Given his recent Marvel comments, it makes me laugh if he was taking notes and lessons from Infinity War
I think your statement is a fallacy: "that came from the director of Gladiator'... etc". BR2049 is, in every shot and every momentum WAY toooo long: there's too little to say, but it insist to be too deep without a strong purpose: BR2049 is just long because Denis' desire of make it too long. "Gladiator" or "Kingdom..." had TOO MUCH to say, and even in their 3 hour running time both films doesn't FEEL long at all. BR2049 definetely feels too long.
On the other side, I think your concepts about atmosphere and your conclusion is effective: RS films from "White Squad" to this day are notoriously inconsistent.
Not every shot or momentum its "way too long" in BR2049, some of they are, but not all of them, and specially the ones that show the world from above.
You bring up a good point though. Kingdom of Heaven's director's cut actually feels shorter than its theatrical cut because of its excellent pacing. That pacing gets all fucked up in the theatrical cut which makes it seem like it goes on forever.
Personally, I don't think 2049 is paced badly nor do I think it's long. But maybe it's just because every frame has is a work of art and most of them have loads of detail. That's more of a preference probably.
He s an extraordinary visual director, but hasn’t very good taste in scripts and good real stories. He has made a lot of turkeys.
What about the Irish man is that not a very long masterpiece?
How can you compare Ridley to who ever makes Avenger superhero shit?
He’s right though, BR 2049 was long and slow. Had nothing on the original.
Pretty sure Scott could spell efficient correctly, though.
Well I like slow movies
Ridley Scott has had no impact on science fiction, he certainly didn't "revolutionize it".
He had no impact? Thats a bit harsh. Blade Runner and Alien are some of the most iconic Science fiction films.
Great video! Keep it up
Thanks!
Blade runner 2049 was written by a stupid child with crayons. One of the worst movies i have ever seen. Ryan gosling was great though. Worst villian, worst back story, worst use of harrison ford even worse than star wars disney style.
highly overrated director
Other than Alien and Blade Runner.. Ridley Scott is not very good.
Gladiator & Black Hawk Down
american gangster, the last duel, many more
Bladerunner 2049 had weak ideas, The story wasn't compelling at all and it wasnt even sci to compared to the first season of Westworld or even the arrival. If you engineer machines to reproduce, then it's not a miracle when they reproduce, it's just design. Also all the action was terrible
the point of the film was to question if it was design or not. why couldnt wallace do it? youre clearly trolling anyway lol
@@austinricky It's not a very profound question whatsoever. I'm not trolling.
@@grey.fox. you don’t know if it’s design though lol you’re pretending like it was obvious tyrell did it because of design. It’s like you expect tyrell is creating west world type characters of sandbox design when it’s more complicated than that. Sometimes things that are designed become unexpectedly different and Wallace is trying to get to how that happened.. K is hoping he is that difference the whole time and acts as a Trojan horse to get the real miracle reunited with her father. Compelling and very sci fi.
Always beware when filmmakers start getting artistic.
I don’t think that’s his problem