Screw indie/artsy director threads, let's talk Scott

[DavidC]

I highly skeptical of Robin Hood being PG-13. Is this another case like Kingdom of Heaven where the studio is fucking it up and we'll have to hold out for the director's cut to see the real movie?

[Pickpocket]

My favorite Scott movie is Matchstick Men

Still not a fan.

[Moribunny]

I love Alien, but nothing else by him.

Scores:

Alien: 78 (Tier 9 for me)
Black Hawk Down: 43
Hannibal: 35
Thelma & Louise: 33
Blade Runner: 30
G. I. Jane: 20

Average rating: 41.71 (which means Tier 3-4).

[TheDenizen]

You can draw a sharp line through Ridley Scott's career right around 1989 when he made the preposterously stupid and arguably racist Black Rain. Everything before that was pretty good or excellent, and everything since has been average at best or total dogshit (I'm looking at you, Gladiator).

[caocao]

I thought that this was an interesting take on Ridley Scott

http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/90712/ridley-scotts-trojan-horse-career

On a side note, Kingdom of Heaven did nothing for me but I'm feeling as though I'll have to find the director's cut in order to give it a fair shake.

[ShogunRua]

I thought that this was an interesting take on Ridley Scott

http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/90712/ridley-scotts-trojan-horse-career

Thank you for reminding me why the only thing I read on Grantland is Bill Barnwell, and I shun their awful entertainment writers. Their theory sounds neat...until you realize that "subverting expectations" and giving viewers a different movie than the genre would suggest is true for at least half the major filmmakers who have ever lived.

Here's a far simpler interpretation of Ridley Scott's career; he was a genius director who started out making great movies, but eventually, ran out of ideas. That combined with effusive praise and the Hollywood system sapped his talent and turned him into a hack. Much like it has with countless other directors.

[mattorama12]

Thank you for reminding me why the only thing I read on Grantland is Bill Barnwell, and I shun their awful entertainment writers. Their theory sounds neat...until you realize that "subverting expectations" and giving viewers a different movie than the genre would suggest is true for at least half the major filmmakers who have ever lived.

I know you, Shogun, didn't care for Breaking Bad (which still surprises me), but the Grantland weekly recaps were pretty solid. I think their entertainment coverage generally is hit or miss (though I'm not an avid reader of any of their entertainment writers). But how can you not love Bill Simmons? He's a great writer with a ton of insight into both the business and Xs and Os of sports, particularly basketball. That said, Barnwell is far and away my favorite, and the reason I first started reading the site. No surprise that you appreciate his application of empiricism to the game.

As for the the Scott article itself, I agree with Shogun that it's nothing particularly unique to Scott. It's hard to think of a great movie that doesn't aim for more thoughtful themes than its genre may suggest. That said, the article is still interesting for going through some of those specific movies and looking at how they are bigger than their genre. It particularly made me want to revisit Black Hawk Down, which is a movie I loved when I saw it long ago, though I think it'd be interesting to watch again with that bureaucratic/workplace theme in mind.

[ShogunRua]

I know you, Shogun, didn't care for Breaking Bad (which still surprises me),

At first, I was surprised you knew this, since I mostly wrote about the series on the Cinemageddon forums. (I watched everything up to episode 4 of season 2, and had posted thoughts after almost every episode) Then, I realized I had made a post on here about it, too. Yeah, with the exception of the Tuco arc and the actor who played him (Raymond Cruz), and the strong performances by Bryan Cranston and Dean Norris, it was a dreary, mediocre show.

I'm actually shocked that people like it so much. Like, what is the appeal? About 15 minutes of every 45 minute episode is meaningful content; the rest is a complete waste. The family drama is nauseating and uninteresting. The crime drama part is limited, and at best, a decent procedural with good acting. Certainly nothing Earth-shattering. What is the appeal?!

But how can you not love Bill Simmons?

I liked him more when I was 17. Nowadays, I think he is okay. Simmons is a decent Internet writer with occasional humorous observations. However, he is frequently a complete idiot who thinks he knows way more than he does about both basketball and football. Honestly, his knowledge of either sport is not particularly high.

I was never super-impressed by him, even in my teens.

He's a great writer with a ton of insight into both the business and Xs and Os of sports, particularly basketball.

Okay, I can categorically state this is false. As someone who used to write about basketball myself (I don't consider myself an expert, but I have some insight into the type of writing) and has come across a lot of brilliant minds, even on smaller blogs, I can say that Simmons' knowledge of basketball is quite limited.

It's not terrible, but it's also no better than that of any average hardcore fan. And a lot of what Bill states is just laughably stupid and incorrect. (I can give specific examples if you really care) In particular, his "The Book of Basketball" was awful.

Zach Lowe is an excellent basketball mind on Grantland's site, if you genuinely want to learn about the sport.

That said, Barnwell is far and away my favorite, and the reason I first started reading the site. No surprise that you appreciate his application of empiricism to the game.

Also, keep in mind that I don't particularly like football and barely ever watch any games! So it's doubly impressive.

And yeah, Barnwell's knowledge of the sport is exceptional. From what little I have read, Chris Brown is also wonderfully knowledgeable, although his nitty-gritty articles are less interesting for someone who isn't a fan, like myself.

As for the the Scott article itself, I agree with Shogun that it's nothing particularly unique to Scott. It's hard to think of a great movie that doesn't aim for more thoughtful themes than its genre may suggest. That said, the article is still interesting for going through some of those specific movies and looking at how they are bigger than their genre. It particularly made me want to revisit Black Hawk Down, which is a movie I loved when I saw it long ago, though I think it'd be interesting to watch again with that bureaucratic/workplace theme in mind.

Their site would massively benefit from someone like the Filthy Critic on there, who I'm a fan of. What's the point of having your own site when you're still obeying the same rigid style and censorship of ESPN or any standard magazine?

[mattorama12]

I know you, Shogun, didn't care for Breaking Bad (which still surprises me),

At first, I was surprised you knew this, since I mostly wrote about the series on the Cinemageddon forums. (I watched everything up to episode 4 of season 2, and had posted thoughts after almost every episode) Then, I realized I had made a post on here about it, too. Yeah, with the exception of the Tuco arc and the actor who played him (Raymond Cruz), and the strong performances by Bryan Cranston and Dean Norris, it was a dreary, mediocre show.

I'm actually shocked that people like it so much. Like, what is the appeal? About 15 minutes of every 45 minute episode is meaningful content; the rest is a complete waste. The family drama is nauseating and uninteresting. The crime drama part is limited, and at best, a decent procedural with good acting. Certainly nothing Earth-shattering. What is the appeal?!

Now I'm even more surprised! I thought you had just watched a couple episodes and gave up on it. The family drama is annoying and the worst part of the show at the beginning, but becomes increasingly interesting as it goes on. By far the best thing about the show is watching the slow descent of Walter White and Cranston's portrayal of it, which to me is some of the finest acting I've ever seen. Norris' Hank was pretty amazing once the series got going as well. But, I think the great appeal was just in watching a normal man become a monster in such a slow fashion. It can't be done in a movie, since you have at most a couple hours. It's the only tv show I've ever watched that had that kind of descent, which was just completely engaging for me. (On second thought, Nip/Tuck had that to a certain extent, but didn't do nearly as good a job and wasn't really about that, so much as the descent was a side-effect of constantly trying to raise the stakes.)

But how can you not love Bill Simmons?

I liked him more when I was 17. Nowadays, I think he is okay. Simmons is a decent Internet writer with occasional humorous observations. However, he is frequently a complete idiot who thinks he knows way more than he does about both basketball and football. Honestly, his knowledge of either sport is not particularly high.

I was never super-impressed by him, even in my teens.

He's a great writer with a ton of insight into both the business and Xs and Os of sports, particularly basketball.

Okay, I can categorically state this is false. As someone who used to write about basketball myself (I don't consider myself an expert, but I have some insight into the type of writing) and has come across a lot of brilliant minds, even on smaller blogs, I can say that Simmons' knowledge of basketball is quite limited.

It's not terrible, but it's also no better than that of any average hardcore fan. And a lot of what Bill states is just laughably stupid and incorrect. (I can give specific examples if you really care) In particular, his "The Book of Basketball" was awful.

Zach Lowe is an excellent basketball mind on Grantland's site, if you genuinely want to learn about the sport.

Fair enough. I'm way more of a football guy myself (mainly bc I can't find the time to watch every Lakers game in a season, but I can commit to watching every Chargers game without much of a problem). So, I can't speak to Simmons' knowledge of basketball as a game. As for football, he's pretty middle of the pack in terms of the game. But for both, and basketball in particular, he appears to know a ton about the business of it, which is something I don't find others write about as ofter or as deeply. I do read Lowe, as well, though not religiously. If you have any other basketball writers you'd recommend, I'm always looking for new and better streams of information. I'm much more interested in the NBA than college, for what it's worth.

As for the the Scott article itself, I agree with Shogun that it's nothing particularly unique to Scott. It's hard to think of a great movie that doesn't aim for more thoughtful themes than its genre may suggest. That said, the article is still interesting for going through some of those specific movies and looking at how they are bigger than their genre. It particularly made me want to revisit Black Hawk Down, which is a movie I loved when I saw it long ago, though I think it'd be interesting to watch again with that bureaucratic/workplace theme in mind.

Their site would massively benefit from someone like the Filthy Critic on there, who I'm a fan of. What's the point of having your own site when you're still obeying the same rigid style and censorship of ESPN or any standard magazine?

Not sure I agree with your premise that they're "obeying the same rigid style and censorship of ESPN." Maybe of a standard magazine, but then, doesn't that make it distinct from the ESPN.com website itself? Most obviously, I believe Grantland is notably lacking a language censorship that ESPN does have. I also believe they have an entirely different set of editors. I don't think ESPN controls any aspect of Grantland, but I can't say for sure. Either way, I can certainly look at two articles and tell you which was on ESPN and which was on Grantland.

I'd never heard of Filthy Critic before, so I checked him out. From the few reviews I read, seems like he has good ideas, it's just unfortunate that I have to sift through his schtick to get to them. To each his own, I guess.

[ShogunRua]

Now I'm even more surprised! I thought you had just watched a couple episodes and gave up on it. The family drama is annoying and the worst part of the show at the beginning, but becomes increasingly interesting as it goes on.

I honestly can't envision how that is even possible!

By far the best thing about the show is watching the slow descent of Walter White and Cranston's portrayal of it, which to me is some of the finest acting I've ever seen. Norris' Hank was pretty amazing once the series got going as well. But, I think the great appeal was just in watching a normal man become a monster in such a slow fashion.

Again, I see all that, but fine acting can only take a show so far if it's dreary and two-thirds of the runtime is a waste. And yeah, it's a nice core concept, but one that has been done magnificently in countless books, so it's not enough for me to suffer through all the boredom that comes with it.

Fair enough. I'm way more of a football guy myself (mainly bc I can't find the time to watch every Lakers game in a season, but I can commit to watching every Chargers game without much of a problem). So, I can't speak to Simmons' knowledge of basketball as a game. As for football, he's pretty middle of the pack in terms of the game.

I'm sure you know far more than me about football, so it's amusing that your summation of Simmons' football knowledge of football is roughly the same as mine about his basketball knowledge!

But for both, and basketball in particular, he appears to know a ton about the business of it, which is something I don't find others write about as ofter or as deeply.

He knows as much as anyone who spends some time on RealGM and reads several basic articles on the CBA. (Collective bargaining agreement) I don't consider myself an expert on basketball finance either, but I occasionally notice factual errors when Bill writes on the subject. Not often, but they occur from time to time.

It's also one of those topics where it's not hard to sound like an expert to a fan with no knowledge of the subject.

Honestly, it's hard to find any writers who are genuine experts on basketball economics. There is a wealth of financial information that only teams are privy to, which is the entire rationale behind their decisions.

I will say that Simmons was an utter idiot when covering the most recent NBA lock-out. Among all of his comically stupid assertions, the funniest might have been his misunderstanding of amortization, and attempt to paint it as something pernicious and underhanded by the owners. (Nevermind that every single business and accountant uses this practice)

I do read Lowe, as well, though not religiously. If you have any other basketball writers you'd recommend, I'm always looking for new and better streams of information. I'm much more interested in the NBA than college, for what it's worth.

Among mainstream ones, Henry Abbott over at ESPN is good. David Aldridge is also really smart. There's a handful of great blog articles I have bookmarked, but I don't recall the names, or whether they were just one-time successes or not. I will look them up for you.

Over on Youtube, there is a great channel by a high school coach where he breaks down plays, mechanics, etc. Some of them are pretty damn funny, like his look at Space Jam.

Not sure I agree with your premise that they're "obeying the same rigid style and censorship of ESPN." Maybe of a standard magazine, but then, doesn't that make it distinct from the ESPN.com website itself? Most obviously, I believe Grantland is notably lacking a language censorship that ESPN does have.

Really? I have barely noticed any difference in language between normal ESPN and Grantland articles, except that many of the latter are poorly-written and highly pretentious.

I also believe they have an entirely different set of editors. I don't think ESPN controls any aspect of Grantland, but I can't say for sure. Either way, I can certainly look at two articles and tell you which was on ESPN and which was on Grantland.

Well, the Grantland ones will have more bloviating, pseudo-philosophizing, and footnotes. That's not difficult.

I'd never heard of Filthy Critic before, so I checked him out. From the few reviews I read, seems like he has good ideas, it's just unfortunate that I have to sift through his schtick to get to them. To each his own, I guess.

I find his Internet character hilarious, but I can see how it's a turn-off for some. Before you make up your mind on Filthy, check out his review of Tron Legacy. You don't even have to have seen the movie; it's just a fantastic piece on the state of modern movies;

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/tronlegacy.html

Amusingly, I first heard of the Filthy Critic when Stephen King praised him in his Entertainment Weekly column.