Ridley Scott on Hollywood: ’3% good, 97% stupid’
5 Comments Published by Matthew Jeppsen September 10th, 2007 in Art, News
Director Ridley Scott had a few interesting things to say when he spoke recently at the Venice Film Festival, promoting “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”.
Comparing the Pitt film to other Hollywood offerings, he said: “I think movies are getting dumber, actually. Where it used to be 50/50, now it’s 3% good, 97% stupid. This is one of those rarities that does get made, thank God, and has serious characterisation and serious things to say. Altogether it’s a wonderful, dramatic and historic piece. But it’s becoming more and more difficult to get films like this made.”
He said Hollywood should stop doing so many remakes and concentrate on original films. Scott also ripped into the idea of viewing movies on mobile phones and computers, suggesting it is killing cinema.
“We try to do films which are in support of cinema, in a large room with good sound and a big picture I’m sure we’re on a losing wicket but we’re fighting technology. Whilst it is wonderful in many aspects, it also has some big negative downsides.”
Personally, I think the decline in theater attendance has more to do with the 3%-97% ratio than with iPod sales, but that’s just me…
UPDATE: Paul Harrill (one of my favorite bloggers in the film/video niche) agrees with Ridley Scott on this issue, and has decided to quit cold turkey. He has a few insightful words on the topic and backs them up with a list of this year’s top grossing films…
FreshDV Sponsors
FreshDV Twitter Feed
- Early Phantom Miro M120 Footage: Jim Geduldick was fortunate enough to get early access to the new Phantom Miro ... http://t.co/iCVgRw1R 1 hr ago
- RT @RyanAndHeidi: Looking for a PA May 10th-11th in San Jose, CA. $200/day. Email hi[at]ryanrbrowne[dot]com. 11 hrs ago
- RT @AndyShipsides: FS700 official sell price - $7,999 21 hrs ago
- RT @mjeppsen: I would be very surprised if ARRI, Sony, and Canon show up for RED's shootout. Jannard is clever. 23 hrs ago
- RT @evan3168: Jim Jannard likes it when it's him vs. everyone else. RED enjoys a certain comfort in being the underdog. 23 hrs ago
- More updates...
Recent Comments
- Kenneth Gooswit on Video Examples from the Blackmagic Camera
- Larry Rizzutti on Zoom H4n vs. Tascam DR-100mkII vs Tascam DR-40
- Larry Rizzutti on Video Examples from the Blackmagic Camera
- Matthew Jeppsen on FreshDV NAB 2012 – Blackmagic Releases a Digital Cinema Camera
- Tyler on Matthew Jeppsen interview with Pulse Network at NAB 2012
Or maybe the decline in theater attendance is due to the fact that the prices of tickets and food just keep growing exponentially. With food and tickets it could cost your family $100 to see a movie. Honestly there hasn’t been a movie recently that I would pay $100 for? I’ll wait for it on Netflix….
it’s several things:
1) the price of tickets to SEE the crappy movie
2) the quality of the experience (most home theaters are just as good as the junk you find in a local movie house. the screen may not be as big, but the sound and image quality are better.)
3) like Scott said, why pay to see a cheap remake of a movie that is already good?
4) viewing a movie initially on a tiny screen is crazy. if that’s the way you first view a film, then you aren’t a film lover, you’re a mass consumer. and that’s the way the studio see us, as mass consumers. so why make a film?
If you look at the movies that have been successful versus movies that have flopped dramatically, you might notice that many films have a message that today’s viewers recognize and resonates with them.
Movies like “300″ which depict good guys versus bad guys without the popular ‘blurring of the lines’ between the two do far better in box office numbers than crap films like “Little Children” or “Babel” that try to make sympathetic the evil-doer’s plight.
So what are some of the positive downsides, Ridley?