movies

1914 readers

100 users here now

Matrix room: https://matrix.to/#/#fediversefilms:matrix.org

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
Trailers
Posters
Retrospectives
Should I watch?

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

Dune

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

orangeNgreen

[email protected]

Long time Ridley Scott collaborator slams the Gladiator 2 director for being "lazy" and "impatient" with his filmmaking: "Having lots of cameras I don’t think has made the films any better" (www.gamesradar.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

John Mathieson, the cinematographer for both Gladiator films, has slammed Ridley Scott's recent filmmaking habits in a new interview.

Speaking on The DocFix podcast, Mathieson described Scott's tendency to leave things in shot to be later cleaned up in post-production as "lazy".

“It’s really lazy. It’s the CG elements now of tidying-up, leaving things in shot, cameras in shot, microphones in shot, bits of set hanging down, shadows from [boom mics]. And they just said [on Gladiator 2], ‘Well, clean it up.'"

The cinematographer didn't stop there, calling Scott "impatient" for getting "as much as he can" using a multi-camera setup.

“Having lots of cameras I don’t think has made the films any better," Mathieson said. "It’s a bit rush, rush, rush. That’s changed in him. But that’s the way he wants to do it and I don’t like it and I don’t think many people do, but people love his films and he’s Ridley Scott and can do what he wants.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

I mean, did people expect anything good from a sequel to a movie that literally didn’t need a sequel?

[–] MimicJar 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I mean Blade Running 2049 is the rare lone exception to being a good sequel to a movie that didn't need a sequel.

Maybe someday another film will achieve what it did, so I gotta keep hoping, but I know it isn't likely.

[–] niktemadur 5 points 2 weeks ago

Speaking of Ridley Scott.
But then in an astute creative move, the sequel was put in the hands of one of the truly best directors working today, in fact it could be said that Dennis Villeneuve is the Ridley Scott of his day. Like Michael Mann has been the John Ford of his day.

Although Villeneuve so far has been a guarantee of quality both in content and presentation, while Scott's erratic career is sprinkled with quite a few mediocre efforts and misfires, like he gets easily distracted, and you can even get a whiff of that in the way he fidgets unnecessarily with his older movies (speaking of Blade Runner) like Lucas did with the Star Wars original trilogy.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)