Is Ridley Scott really that good?

[DACrowe]

P.S. Lincoln has potential to be his next masterpiece.

 

[DACrowe]

Jackson > Spielberg

Just because Jackson has really made only one stinker (yeah yeah, he has time to make more), while Spielberg hasn't really been good since 1993. Catch Me If You Can and Munich were great, but everything else ok, meh or even ****. (Yeah, I thought SPR was just ALRIGHT.)

He's still riding on his 70s and 80s fame. Maybe rightfully so, because most of that stuff is gold, Jerry! Gold!

When Jackson gets around to making another great movie, let me know. As far as I can tell he only has Lord of the Rings....which while great were all made at once and kind of count as one. Dead Alive was okay in schocky B-movie way and King Kong could have been enjoyable if it wasn't three hours long due to pretensions. The less said about The Lovely Bones the better.

As far as I can tell he hasn't made one movie on par with Jaws. Or Schindler's List. Or Saving Private Ryan. Or Jurassic Park. Or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Nor does he have a 30-year resume where 2 out of every 3 movies are considered classics.

At least you didn't say Cameron, but the idea that Jackson is better than Spielberg based entirely on three movies that are almost ten years old....it boggles the mind. To put it another way in the ten years since LOTR, Jackson has made King Kong and The Lovely Bones. In the ten years since LOTR was shot, Spielberg (supposedly past his prime) has made Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can and Munich. You don't have to compare those to his earlier efforts...just compare those to Jackson's post-LOTR films. This is not even a contest because it is so unfair.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

o so Lincoln is still under way? sorry, i haven't been keeping up on that, i knew he was working on war horse, thats about it.

 

[Bunker]

So is 2000's-Era Spielberg. Highly debatable.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Schindler's List (1993)
Jurassic Park (1993)
The Color Purple (1985)
ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Jaws (1975)

Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that he can't reach this level again? I mean, Jesus.

Munich is probably the best thing he's ever done, so yes.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Munich was great, but I preferred Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can myself.

 

[ALP]

Legend is so underrated!

And Peter Jackson isn't even in the same league as Spielberg. The LOTR trilogy is the only timeless classic he has. And at this rate, by the time Jackson is 65, he certainly won't have as many good films as the Berg has. Don't get me wrong, Jackson is good but he isn't as good as Berg.

 

[bullets]

Minority Report, while I wouldn't insist that its quite that level, is one of my favorite movies of all time. Its kind of random I know, but I love it.

That's a cool film. Also I really enjoy A.I. and Catch Me If You Can is one of my favorite films. Spielberg is still one of the best out there.

 

[The Morningstar]

So is 2000's-Era Spielberg. Highly debatable.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Schindler's List (1993)
Jurassic Park (1993)
The Color Purple (1985)
ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Jaws (1975)

Isn't it pretty much common knowledge that he can't reach this level again? I mean, Jesus.

Minority Report, Munich and i'd also say Catch Me if you Can all say hello.

 

[flickchick85]

Yes, Ridley Scott & Steven Spielberg ARE really that good.

And I'd count the Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut as one of those masterpieces as well. Even mediocre Ridley (Body of Lies, Robin Hood) still = decent-to-good movies.

Peter Jackson? Eh, I liked LotR and Heavenly Creatures, but that's about it. He kinda reminds me of Sam Raimi - a B-movie filmmaker finding himself in the arena of A-list material. On a passion project like LotR that works out brilliantly, but on everything else, his roots seem to show through...and not in a good way.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea the Directors Cut of Kingdom of Heaven is amazing.

 

[Wheels]

As far as 2000's era Spielberg goes I like Catch Me If You Can, and that's about it.

 

[Rac]

When Jackson gets around to making another great movie, let me know. As far as I can tell he only has Lord of the Rings....which while great were all made at once and kind of count as one. Dead Alive was okay in schocky B-movie way and King Kong could have been enjoyable if it wasn't three hours long due to pretensions. The less said about The Lovely Bones the better.

As far as I can tell he hasn't made one movie on par with Jaws. Or Schindler's List. Or Saving Private Ryan. Or Jurassic Park. Or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Nor does he have a 30-year resume where 2 out of every 3 movies are considered classics.

At least you didn't say Cameron, but the idea that Jackson is better than Spielberg based entirely on three movies that are almost ten years old....it boggles the mind. To put it another way in the ten years since LOTR, Jackson has made King Kong and The Lovely Bones. In the ten years since LOTR was shot, Spielberg (supposedly past his prime) has made Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can and Munich. You don't have to compare those to his earlier efforts...just compare those to Jackson's post-LOTR films. This is not even a contest because it is so unfair.

Braindead and Meet the Feebles > everything ever

It's not even my opinion. It's a fact.

At least you didn't say Cameron

Cameron hasn't been good since the 80s.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Wait, so now we're debating how good Steven ****ing Spielberg is?

Please God, shoot me now.

Without his films the movie industry would be different today. I.e. not as good. Same with SW. I just find it laughable how people can sit here and criticize and debate the quality of these incredible films while they pop in a movie they love that most likely was influenced by Spielberg or Scott in some way. Kubrick influenced Scott. Scott influences Nolan and about hundreds of other filmmakers. Lucas was influenced by Kurosawa. Jackson was influenced by Lucas. Cameron was influenced by Lucas. Spielberg was even influenced by Lucas. Spielberg influenced by Hitchcock, Ford, and Kubrick.

I mean where the hell will this go next? Are Kubrick and Hitchcock really that good?

 

[Doc Ock]

I think Ridley Scott is very good but like most "older" directors today they are not who they used to be IMO. The George Lucas, Steven Speilberg, or James Cameron(uh....James Cameron...ewww ) isn't as good as they once were. Indiana Jones 1-3 > Indy 4. Star Wars Original Trilogy > Prequel Trilogy. Terminator, T2, Aliens > Avatar, Titanic. Just for example.

Just my opinion, but the likes of Ridley Scott are good even if they make a bad film. Because they have made so many great films in the past.

 

[dude stannis]

Really? I think Scott, Scorsese and Spielberg have aged superbly. Lucas and Cameron are more interested in showing off their MS Paint skills to sell some toys.

 

[The Morningstar]

Really? I think Scott, Scorsese and Spielberg have aged superbly. Lucas and Cameron are more interested in showing off their MS Paint skills to sell some toys.

I 100% agree with this. Especially the last part about Lucas and Cameron.

 

[dark_b]

bravo.......... Cameron is making movies to sell toys.

bravo.............

 

[dude stannis]

And to show off his MS Paint skill don't forget.

 

[dark_b]

bravo. the effects in Avatar are like MS Pant. bravo.

 

[dude stannis]

Yep. He's got the MS Paint skillz that killz at the B.O. (Meaning box office and the smell I would liken his later films to).

I'm not bashing Avatar to bash Avatar. This applies to the Star Wars Prequels, Indy 4 and all the other sell out films the old guys are doing too BTW. Many of which I happen to like.

 

[Bunker]

You are a visionary.