Guess they'll turn anything into a movie now.

[frederic_g54]

and Michael Bay is in talks for "Where's Waldo"...

[miss jesus]

Go to IMDB and look at how many projects Ridley Scott has in development. Then scroll down and see those other ones that are 'announced' under each of his categories. I don't believe for a minute that out of all those, he's gonna choose to spend his time on Monopoly, especially when the premise they've developed for it is so awful, and so unlike anything Scott has ever done. First they said "Scott is doing it and he has this Blade Runner-like idea for a high-stakes future world of financial gaming," and then they said "it's this movie about a Monopoly champion who wakes up one morning to find himself in Monopoly World, where he has to play King Monopoly and win or some shit to get back to his own world" complete with these painfully whimsical details they'd envisioned of him buying a latte and only finding monopoly money in his pocket, and seeing a wheelbarrow when he goes outside. I call BS on Scott getting into this garbage. I think the studios know that people are snickering and "whaaaa?"-ing about this whole Hasbro deal and they're just saying anything they can to spin it. What Scott gets out of going along with this, I have no idea. Maybe I'm too cynical. But that's my view. This crap---it sounds like they're not even trying.

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole venture turned out to produce 0 movies and be nothing more than some kind of weird tax write-off or something (or maybe that's just me hoping). They simultaneously acquired the rights to Magic: The Gathering, and if they took two seconds to plan this, they'd be using that to develop a halfway decent fantasy franchise to cash in on the upcoming Hobbit mania.

(Sorry for the tone. I do love movies that don't suck. I'm just flabbergasted by this whole thing.)

[Pickpocket]

It wouldn't be that surprising if Scott did this (assuming that this movie is gonna suck). For some reason people hold Ridley Scott in such high esteem but for every good movie he's done, there's like 2 incredibly shitty ones to counter them.

[Stain]

Go to IMDB and look at how many projects Ridley Scott has in development. Then scroll down and see those other ones that are 'announced' under each of his categories. I don't believe for a minute that out of all those, he's gonna choose to spend his time on Monopoly, especially when the premise they've developed for it is so awful, and so unlike anything Scott has ever done. First they said "Scott is doing it and he has this Blade Runner-like idea for a high-stakes future world of financial gaming," and then they said "it's this movie about a Monopoly champion who wakes up one morning to find himself in Monopoly World, where he has to play King Monopoly and win or some shit to get back to his own world" complete with these painfully whimsical details they'd envisioned of him buying a latte and only finding monopoly money in his pocket, and seeing a wheelbarrow when he goes outside. I call BS on Scott getting into this garbage. I think the studios know that people are snickering and "whaaaa?"-ing about this whole Hasbro deal and they're just saying anything they can to spin it. What Scott gets out of going along with this, I have no idea.

Probably the same thing Werner Herzog gets out of remaking one of his own movies as a fiction film with name actors (Rescue Dawn), then remaking Bad Lieutenant... and that Robert Benton received by making The Human Stain, which is quite unlike anything he's ever done... and that Philip Kaufman received by making that risible Ashley Judd thriller Twisted (also out of character, for him). I think of this whole subgenre of film as "401K movies".

This is one of the reasons why I'm not such a director-centric flickhead like I once was, and why nowadays I find sites like Criticker so useful.

[Stain]

It wouldn't be that surprising if Scott did this (assuming that this movie is gonna suck). For some reason people hold Ridley Scott in such high esteem but for every good movie he's done, there's like 2 incredibly shitty ones to counter them.

The reputation of almost every "star" director is based on two or three films. Some of them actually do have a good batting average (William A. Wellman comes to mind). Others, like Scott, get a sky-high reputation based on a handful of widely seen films, then hope that everyone forgets about stuff like G.I. Jane.

This is another reason why I am not so director-centric as I once was.

[Pickpocket]

It wouldn't be that surprising if Scott did this (assuming that this movie is gonna suck). For some reason people hold Ridley Scott in such high esteem but for every good movie he's done, there's like 2 incredibly shitty ones to counter them.

The reputation of almost every "star" director is based on two or three films. Some of them actually do have a good batting average (William A. Wellman comes to mind). Others, like Scott, get a sky-high reputation based on a handful of widely seen films, then hope that everyone forgets about stuff like G.I. Jane.

This is another reason why I am not so director-centric as I once was.

Yeah. I also might respect him more if he wrote his own stuff but he just takes other people's scripts and shoots them. He's not even creative enough to come up with his own ideas.

[theficionado]

Yeah. I also might respect him more if he wrote his own stuff but he just takes other people's scripts and shoots them. He's not even creative enough to come up with his own ideas.

Goddammit, I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. But in case it isn't, what about Hitchcock or Scorsese, whose best films were written by other people? It's not as though you can't be an auteur without coming up with your own stuff. (Note: This is not intended by me to be a defense of Ridley Scott. Though Blade Runner is self-evidently awesome.) If this is sarcasm, please ignore.

Probably the same thing Werner Herzog gets out of remaking one of his own movies as a fiction film with name actors (Rescue Dawn), then remaking Bad Lieutenant... and that Robert Benton received by making The Human Stain, which is quite unlike anything he's ever done... and that Philip Kaufman received by making that risible Ashley Judd thriller Twisted (also out of character, for him). I think of this whole subgenre of film as "401K movies".

I doubt very much that Rescue Dawn was meant to contribute to Herzog's retirement fund, and the only reason the Bad Lieutenant brand was attached to Herzog's new film was because the studio mandated it; it isn't a remake. And to be fair, The Human Stain is based on a hell of a book... I think that might have been a pet project that simply went awry.

[Pickpocket]

Yeah. I also might respect him more if he wrote his own stuff but he just takes other people's scripts and shoots them. He's not even creative enough to come up with his own ideas.

Goddammit, I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. But in case it isn't, what about Hitchcock or Scorsese, whose best films were written by other people? It's not as though you can't be an auteur without coming up with your own stuff. (Note: This is not intended by me to be a defense of Ridley Scott. Though Blade Runner is self-evidently awesome.) If this is sarcasm, please ignore.

Well, Scorsese and Hitchcock have at least written their own shit before, Ridley never has. And some of Scorsese's best movies are ones that he wrote or co-wrote: Mean Streets, Goodfellas, and Casino. Also, Silence sounds awesome (movie about Jesuit priests starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Gael Garcia Bernal and Benicio Del Toro) and he has a writing credit on that. I haven't seen any of Hitchcock's stuff that he's written so I can't defend it.

[miss jesus]

I hereby backpedal fully. I didn't want to believe this story because I've always liked Scott--I don't think he makes consistently Good films but I find them consistently interesting--and frankly I think this is beneath him. Also, I hate Monopoly. It's like somebody made a game out of some of the most irritating parts of adulthood.

In thinking about Scott's movies some more, I realized that his films frequently have a lot of content about the rules and what's expected of you, and I guess that's pretty consistent with the project.