Ridley Scott is overrated as a director

[hepcat]

I just watched Napoleon the other night and...well...it's not very good. This got me thinking about his last few movies. None of them were what I would call great. I know he's done great things in the past. Blade Runner, Alien, Thelma and Louise (and I liked The Martian, to be fair). But the majority of his films seem to be just average to below average.

So I hereby declare that Ridley Scott is a mediocre filmmaker coasting on a few past successes. You may now attack me en masse for being a heretic.

[Blackhawk]

I won't say that I disagree with the premise, although I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Rather than a mediocre director coasting on a few successes, I'd suggest that he's a talented director who has lost his touch (and at 87, that's not an unreasonable thing.)

[telcta]

Wow, he’s 87? Sometimes I think time just stands still then I’m shocked back into reality that I’m getting really old.

[hepcat]

I would agree with BH if this was a recent development. But it’s not. He’s been churning out mediocre films for decades at this point.

I look at a masterpiece like Bladerunner, then crap like Robin Hood and Prometheus and I have to wonder what the heck happened.

P.S. I shouldn’t have written “last few movies” earlier. As mentioned, it’s been going on for a while now.

[em2nought]

I've recently heard it said that his director's cut versions are usually better than the theatrical releases, but I've never seen any of his director's cut versions yet so I have no first hand experience. Planning to see Napoleon with my sister when I pass by next month.

[Isgrimnur]

Title	IMDB Rating	Year
Napoleon	(6.5)	2023
House of Gucci	(6.6)	2021
The Last Duel	(7.4)	2021
All the Money in the World	(6.8)	2017
Alien: Covenant	(6.4)	2017
The Martian	(8.0)	2015
Exodus: Gods and Kings	(6.0)	2014
The Counselor	(5.4)	2013
Prometheus	(7.0)	2012
Robin Hood	(6.6)	2010
Body of Lies	(7.0)	2008
American Gangster	(7.8)	2007
A Good Year	(6.9)	2006
All the Invisible Children	(7.4)	2005	(segment Jonathan)
Kingdom of Heaven	(7.3)	2005
Matchstick Men	(7.3)	2003
Black Hawk Down	(7.7)	2001
Hannibal	(6.8)	2001
Gladiator	(8.5)	2000
G.I. Jane	(6.0)	1997
White Squall	(6.6)	1996
1492: Conquest of Paradise	(6.4)	1992
Thelma & Louise	(7.6)	1991
Black Rain	(6.6)	1989
Someone to Watch Over Me	(6.1)	1987
Legend	(6.3)	1985
Blade Runner	(8.1)	1982
Alien	(8.5)	1979
The Duellists	(7.4)	1977

[Rumpy]

I think the thing about Napoleon is that it's been decades in the making, and that's never really good if a movie has been troubled to begin with. Everything I've read about it seems to indicate it's that kind of movie, and that in the end, it never really comes together. It's a shame, because I think the subject can be epic and fascinating if done right.

[Isgrimnur]

The average of the above 29 titles represents a mean score of 7.0.

Per my 2018 data mining research, the median score on IMDB is 6.7, with the third quartile starting at a floor of 7.5, and a mean of 6.559.

And given the cachet that his name carries, he likely skews to the higher end when it comes to votes received. The Counselor (5.4) received 105k votes.

This certainly suggests that, while a high number of votes is not necessary to receive a high score, those that receive a high number of votes are more likely to receive a high score. Exposure, therefore is key, which should inform marketing and outreach efforts to ensure that your film, if it lends itself to it, to seek the widest audience.

I leave the considerations of Wins Above Replacement Director to those researchers who would come after me.

In conclusion, my previous research indicates that, taking the entirety of his feature film production, Sir Ridley Scott GBE is an average director at worst, and perhaps marginally better than median.

[Alefroth]

For a while I expected everything to be as good as Alien or Blade Runner, then came to the conclusion he isn't really that special.

[Max Peck]

I'm willing to forgive any number of Napoleons if a director is going to serve up at least one Alien in their career.

[malchior]

I think the thing about Napoleon is that it's been decades in the making, and that's never really good if a movie has been troubled to begin with. Everything I've read about it seems to indicate it's that kind of movie, and that in the end, it never really comes together. It's a shame, because I think the subject can be epic and fascinating if done right.

It should have never been a movie. Too much material to condense.

[Jaymann]

To be fair, that G.I. Jane was really something.

[hepcat]

I'm willing to forgive any number of Napoleons if a director is going to serve up at least one Alien in their career.

That and Bladerunner are masterpieces. I guess that’s why I feel so disappointed in his body of work in general.

Back to the subject of Napoleon, I honestly think casting Joaquin was just a really awful choice. It was way out of his comfort zone.

[McNutt]

He's not as consistent as Scorcese, but when he's good, he's as good as anyone.

A director that has on his resume:
The Duelists
Alien
Blade Runner
Thelma and Louise
Gladiator
Black Hawk Down
The Last Duel

Is a great director.

Spielberg has quite a few turds in his filmography, yet he is still a great director. Same with DePalma and Coppola.

Hell, even Eastwood made Cry Macho.

[Chraolic]

That and Bladerunner are masterpieces. I guess that’s why I feel so disappointed in his body of work in general.

It seems to me that any director who starts their career with two of the most influential sci-fi movies of all time is going to have an uphill struggle to top themselves. I will say I find the breadth of his work impressive, though. Sci-fi, fantasy, historical drama, crime, bio-pics; I suppose the only thing he hasn't done is a comedy.

[hepcat]

He's not as consistent as Scorcese, but when he's good, he's as good as anyone.

A director that has on his resume:
The Duelists
Alien
Blade Runner
Thelma and Louise
Gladiator
Black Hawk Down
The Last Duel

Is a great

All but one of those was 20 years or more ago. But I agree that The Last Duel is a pretty damn good movie.

[McNutt]

Prometheus was a very well-made movie. It was gorgeous. He just went with a story that was absolute shit.

But seriously, when was the last time Coppola made a great movie? 45 years ago? He's still an all-time great in my book. Same with Scott.
You don't have to have the ridiculous streak of amazing films as Scorcese or Kurosawa to be great. That's only to be considered "the greatest."

[hepcat]

Coppola seems to be less interested in filmmaking and more involved in his wine making the last twenty years or so. Scott keeps churning out films at a fairly steady pace. I think he was a good director at one point, heck I’ll even say great director; but he’s really not been knocking out of the park for quite some time.

Also, he’s never once used the noun “peanut smuggling” in any of his films.

[McNutt]

But in recent years he made The Last Duel and The Martian. Those were both really good. He also somehow made a good movie featuring Mark Wahlberg. Not even Billy Wilder could have done that.

[hepcat]

They’re good, but not great. His reputation would make you think he’s a visionary filmmaker, but I feel like he’s a competent one at his worst and a good one at his best. But I only think “great” for a small number of his early films.

[Rumpy]

I think the thing about Napoleon is that it's been decades in the making, and that's never really good if a movie has been troubled to begin with. Everything I've read about it seems to indicate it's that kind of movie, and that in the end, it never really comes together. It's a shame, because I think the subject can be epic and fascinating if done right.

It should have never been a movie. Too much material to condense.

Well, there have been other movies about Napoleon (one in the 70's is acclaimed, but can't remember the name), and they were apparently much better than this one. It's all in how the director chooses to portray him. So, it can be done, with a skilled director but apparently Ridley Scott lost the plot.

[Kraken]

I'm willing to forgive any number of Napoleons if a director is going to serve up at least one Alien in their career.

[McNutt]

They’re good, but not great. His reputation would make you think he’s a visionary filmmaker, but I feel like he’s a competent one at his worst and a good one at his best. But I only think “great” for a small number of his early films.

I think you might be trolling a bit, but let's consider Spielberg. Is he great? He's been pretty prolific, but he hasn't made a great film since 1998 with Saving Private Ryan. He's definitely not batting 1,000. He's still a Hall of Fame director though.

Coppola made four great movies, but that was over 40 years ago. And he's still making movies in addition to wine.

Eastwood hasn't made a great movie in 20 years, even though most of what he made since then was pretty good.

If Ridley Scott isn't a great director, I would think your list of greats can be counted on one hand.

[hepcat]

Stating something you don’t agree with isn’t necessarily trolling. If that were the case, you’ve trolled me numerous times.

Also, I am discussing Ridley Scott. I’m not sure why you keep bringing up other directors constantly. I recently saw Napoleon. I was disappointed by it. That made me think of Scott’s filmography and how I’ve been frequently disappointed by the overwhelming majority of his films the last two decades or so, yet there’s always excitement over his next film.

If you don’t agree with me, I expect an apology for your attempt to troll me!

[McNutt]

I bring up other directors because I want to see if you agree with me on them, which might help me understand your criteria for being great.

I do realize I'm stating opinion as though it's fact. You are certainly entitled to your own. It just floored me that someone with the movie background you have would think he's not making the grade. I thought that was just understood and for me it was like the time I learned that some people stand up to wipe themselves.

"Whaaaaaat?"

[hepcat]

If we go with the belief you’re trying to put forth that you’re a much more informed film buff, sure.

[McNutt]

Ok, I'm going to stop. I'm obviously coming off as an elitist and that's not what I meant to do.

[hepcat]

I did invite people to attack me for my opinion as I knew it wouldn’t be popular with some. However, a quick Google search will reveal I’m hardly alone in believing he’s overrated.

Of course, a quick Google search will reveal that every director who has ever made a film is overrated, so take that as you will.

[Blackhawk]

And a quick search will also show that every director is the greatest director that's ever lived.

Are there any directors who are consistent enough for their entire careers that you'd grant them 'great'? Guillermo del Toro has his fair share of stinkers (although the proportions seem more in his favor.) Tarantino, maybe?

[malchior]

I think the thing about Napoleon is that it's been decades in the making, and that's never really good if a movie has been troubled to begin with. Everything I've read about it seems to indicate it's that kind of movie, and that in the end, it never really comes together. It's a shame, because I think the subject can be epic and fascinating if done right.

It should have never been a movie. Too much material to condense.

Well, there have been other movies about Napoleon (one in the 70's is acclaimed, but can't remember the name), and they were apparently much better than this one. It's all in how the director chooses to portray him. So, it can be done, with a skilled director but apparently Ridley Scott lost the plot.

I believe you're referring to Waterloo and it has a very narrow scope comparatively. That's a movie about his post-abdication through Waterloo. It covers a narrow range of events in other words.

Scott's movie is an attempt to capture a much grander sweep of Napoleon's life which I believe would need to be a limited series or something along those lines to be done properly. The sort of sacrifices he had to make for run time/etc. lead to a lack of coherence in the "bio" part of the movie. The battle scenes in comparison are well-executed.

As an aside, I also agree with Hepcat that Phoenix is miscast. Or maybe they were going for some meta-commentary on Napoleon that isn't entirely obvious. It's hard to tell if it was a bad fit, bad execution, or just something that is completely flying over your head in this case.

[disarm]

Are there any directors who are consistent enough for their entire careers that you'd grant them 'great'? Guillermo del Toro has his fair share of stinkers (although the proportions seem more in his favor.) Tarantino, maybe?

I'm a big fan of David Fincher...Seven, Fight Club, Zodiac, Gone Girl, Panic Room, Social Network, Benjamin Button, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. He has a way of making unique, interesting movies that have pulled me in for a long time, but I do think he flies a little more under the radar when it comes to name recognition.

[hepcat]

And a quick search will also show that every director is the greatest director that's ever lived.

Are there any directors who are consistent enough for their entire careers that you'd grant them 'great'? Guillermo del Toro has his fair share of stinkers (although the proportions seem more in his favor.) Tarantino, maybe?

Is Guillermo del Toro frequently brought up as one of the greatest directors of our time? Again: the point of my post was that Scott is held in such high regard by some, but that I didn't think he deserves to be. Hence my use of the word "overrated" and not "he sucks". Discussions of other directors is irrelevant in that context and off topic.

[McNutt]

You did call him mediocre.

Other directors are brought up because we need a point of reference when rating something/someone.

[hepcat]

Other directors are brought up because we need a point of reference when rating something/someone.

Why? My point was that he's overrated, not that he sucks. I called him mediocre, but I also pointed out he HAS made some great movies in the past. And I do say at best he's a good filmmaker. Discussions of other directors is, again, irrelevant. This discussion is about Ridley Scott and his oft cited status as one of our greatest directors. I think that status is undeserved after making so many films that really just aren't that great. "You're only as good as your last success", as they say. Unfortunately, he hasn't had that many successes in the last 20 years (in my opinion, of course...but that opinion is backed up by quite a few reviews).

i.e. this discussion is about whether or not Scott is overrated. Not who's a great filmmaker in the wider pantheon of filmmakers.

[YellowKing]

"Overrated" to me would imply that Scott's greatest works are somehow flukes or accidents (and there are many - aside from two of the greatest science fiction movies ever made, you have one of the best 90s comedies, one of the best commercials of all time, and a Best Picture winner with Gladiator). I have a really hard time buying the concept that someone with mediocre talent just stumbled their way through making those films.

Overrated, to me, means lavished with *undeserved* praise, and I don't see how he can be undeserving of praise with those films under his belt. Now whether he was, in later decades, able to live up to the standards of those early films is certainly a valid question.

I'm not sure if anticipation of a new film by a legendary director counts as "overrating" them. It could just simply be that people are hoping (not without good reason) that lightning will be captured in a bottle again. Every new film brings that hope.

[hepcat]

That I can see. I'm not trying to diminish the greatness of Alien and Bladerunner, so I can understand the argument that perhaps I'm using the wrong word for my disappointment in Scott's later oeuvre. To me, overrated applies when you are a fairly prolific producer of something, are hailed as great based on only a few of your works, and then continue to churn out things that are only good to average while still having a group of people praise you.

[McNutt]

This discussion is about Ridley Scott and his oft cited status as one of our greatest directors.

How do you measure him as one of the greatest without comparing him to others?

[hepcat]

You can compare his work to other great films. That doesn't mean his status of greatness depends on whether or not other filmmakers have been consistently great filmmakers over the course of their career (which is what you and others keep trying to push me into discussing...which would be a deadly mistake on the internet ).

[Max Peck]

I asked Microsoft's Copilot for a definitive answer to the question:

Ridley Scott is a renowned filmmaker known for his work in both film and television. Opinions on whether he is overrated can vary, but here are some perspectives:

1. Positive Views:
- Ridley Scott has directed several acclaimed films that have left a significant impact on cinema. Classics like "Blade Runner" and "Alien" are considered groundbreaking and influential.
- His visual style, attention to detail, and ability to create immersive worlds have earned him a dedicated fan base.
- Some argue that his filmography includes both critical and commercial successes, making him a respected figure in the industry.

2. Critiques and Overrated Claims:
- Despite his successes, some critics and cinephiles consider Ridley Scott overrated for several reasons:
- Inconsistency: While he has made exceptional films, his overall filmography includes both hits and misses. Some of his recent works have not lived up to the standards set by his earlier classics.
- Formulaic Approach: Some argue that Scott's movies follow a formulaic structure. For example, his use of nonlinear storytelling and certain recurring themes can make his work predictable.
- Self-Indulgence: Occasionally, Ridley Scott's films have been criticized for being self-indulgent or overly ambitious. Some believe that he prioritizes style over substance.
- Mixed Reception: Films like "Prometheus" received mixed reviews, with some praising its visuals and others finding fault with the plot and character development.

3. Personal Preference:
- Ultimately, whether one considers Ridley Scott overrated depends on personal taste. Some viewers appreciate his contributions to cinema, while others may find fault with specific aspects of his work.

In summary, Ridley Scott has made significant contributions to film history, but opinions on his overall impact and consistency can vary widely. Whether he is overrated or not remains a subjective judgment..

Source: Conversation with Bing, 2024-01-13
(1) Top 10 Most Overrated Movie Directors | Geek Culture. https://geekculture.co/top-10-most-over ... directors/.
(2) Top 10 Most Overrated Directors of All Time - Breitbart News Network. https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment ... -all-time/.
(3) Top 10 Most Overrated Directors Working Today - JoBlo. https://www.joblo.com/lists-top-10-most ... ing-today/.
(4) 'Napoleon' director Ridley Scott: ‘The French Don’t Even Like .... https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/ ... -lets-talk.
(5) Would you consider Ridley Scott an average/mediocre filmmaker?. https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comment ... _scott_an/.

TL;DR: You do you, boo.

[hepcat]

Now ask it how Ridley Scott would create a nuclear bomb.

Edit: I do find it interesting that copilot goes to breitbart for film criticism.