“I first pursued Forever War 25 years ago, and the book has only grown more timely and relevant since,” Ridley Scott recently said to Variety. “It’s a science-fiction epic, a bit of The Odyssey by way of Blade Runner, built upon a brilliant, disorienting premise.”
Seeing as the last two times Mr. Scott tackled sci-fi, he shook up the world with a pair of masterpieces, Alien and Blade Runner, seeing him talking about delving into the genre once again is something worth noting. The book’s premise from its Amazon page is very intriguing:
The book tells the timeless story of war, in this case a conflict between humanity and the alien Taurans. Humans first bumped heads with the Taurans when we began using collapsars to travel the stars. Although the collapsars provide nearly instantaneous travel across vast distances, the relativistic speeds associated with the process means that time passes slower for those aboard ship. For William Mandella, a physics student drafted as a soldier, that means more than 27 years will have passed between his first encounter with the Taurans and his homecoming, though he himself will have aged only a year. When Mandella finds that he can’t adjust to Earth after being gone so long from home, he reenlists, only to find himself shuttled endlessly from battle to battle as the centuries pass.
It is supposed to be a real psychological study on the effects war has on one man and I bet his family and wife(?) and children(?) are unhappy when they age 27 years and he only ages one. It would be pretty psychologically disturbing to have your own children surpass you in age in a matter of two years, I imagine.
So, a great plot with endless possibilities and Ridley Scott’s return to sci-fi. Please, join me in celebrating this joyous news with some of this fine champagne I brought. The sooner he gets to this and puts behind boring scripts such as Body of Lies and A Good Year, the better.
I’m thinking Scott should have taken my advice and adapted Alastair Reynolds “CHASM CITY” with Russell Crowe in the lead. Ah Well. (see here: http://www.rowthree.com/2008/08/25/six-novels-i-would-love-to-see-adapted-into-films/)
and while we are throwing amazon summaries around, here is CHASM CITY: “When security specialist Tanner Mirabel loses a client, killed by an assassin named Argent Reivich, he sets off on a manhunt to bring Reivich to justice. His search leads him to the domed community of Chasm City, located on the planet Yellowstone. There he confronts the city’s strange, mutated inhabitants victims of a nanotechnological virus and ultimately comes up against his own worst fears and inner demons.”
Heh. Maybe, but this is still a damn interesting project. Hopefully he doesn’t try to get Orlando Bloom and he elects to bring on somebody like DiCaprio for this project. Can you imagine DiCaprio in a sci-fi movie?
That’s a pretty heavy topic, yet still very sci fi. They need an actor with the chops to make it believable and dramatic enough to move the audience. So I’m thinking someone who isn’t Shia LeBeouf and more along the lines of a Christian Bale or Viggo Mortensen.
Sounds like an interesting story but R. Scott is a mediocre director. He’s a master imitator who’s talent is stealing tricks from the masters.
What master filmmaker did he steal from with Alien and Blade Runner? How about The Duellists or even Legend? Um. Or even Black Hawk Down, for that matter?
That is just a silly statement.
Alien was made by most of the technicians who got canned from Alejandro Jodorowski’s DUNE. When the project switched over to David Lynch, much of the creature designs and other stuff went on to the ALIEN production.
Blade Runner looks a heck-uv-a-lot like the dystopian trash-filled sprawl of Soylent Green.
While I don’t feel that strongly as Rusty, I do think that Ridley Scott is great at making films by committee, and there isn’t anything wrong with that unless you are a hard-core auteurist….
Okay. Then I ask, what Hollywood films aren’t made “by committee?”
Having others make creature designs and being lightly inspired by another dystopian film (I stress “lightly” there too) is hardly a criticism. I get what you are saying, but all directors imitate and I don’t see much of a case for Ridley doing it any more than most successful directors out there.
If I have any criticism with Ridley, it is he focuses way too much on creating those gorgeous visuals and not enough time on polishing his stories and characters.
Ridley Scotts ripoff of Leni Riefenstahl makes Gladiator interesting.
“what Hollywood films aren’t made “by committee?”
The films of M. Night Shyamalan.
Ridley Scott is a master craftsman though. And he does churn out entertaining stuff once in awhile. I liked American Gangster in the theatre. It’s true that he may not be the worlds greatest artists, but in a world where Steven Spielberg can be held in high regard for making something like Jaws, I think Ridley Scott is just as deserving for making Alien. Blade Runner fails at everything except the city and the score. I liked Hannibal quite a bit as well. I mean are you giving him credit for not ruining the entertaining films, or lambasting him for not elevating them? I think since Steven Spielberg and the likes fall in the ‘credit’ category, Ridley Scott should as well.
The auteur label is a lazy way of saying ‘this collection of films’, or ‘these kinds of techniques’… rarely if ever is there such a thing as an auteur. Ownership is less important than what ultimately is being conveyed via the story. Are the stories depicted in films directed by Ridley Scott any good? I would say on the whole, no, they rarely leave me with anything, at best they entertain for two hours, but have no lasting importance.
Blade Runner is insanely overrated.
Ridley’s only work that I like is Alien.
With everything out there and so many conversations, we need the occasional ‘lazy shorthand’ like the Auteur Theory. Although it is not perfect or comprehensive or even applicable in many cases. It certainly helps conversation which can lead down more interesting avenues.
Regarding the Forever War, I really like this premise but do not think Ridley is the man for the job. This has the makings of a great art film, maybe Winterbottom.
Auteurs exist. Probably rarer in filmmaking than any other artform, and especially insanely rare in America, but they do exist and they validate the medium. Any true artist is an auteur. Anybody who would agree that they themselves were not an auteur because they couldn’t have made it themselves etc. is compromising their self (as the case may often be, more than willingly) and ceases being an artist, and becomes a craftsman. These are the people necessary to make film a profitable business, but they are not the ones who make film worthwhile.
Look at somebody like Mark Romanek. He did one movie, which was no masterpiece and no financial success, but it was something he wanted to do. Now, because of the lack of financial success, he is having to make a studio picture of some sort. But it seems, he constantly reaches points in productions where he thinks the compromise has gotten too big, and he leaves. He may not ever make a film again. But he has my respect. And his music videos are pretty amazing. M. Night Shyamalan has only been able to do whatever he wants (at least up untill Lady in the Water), because The Sixth Sense was such a massive hit. Obviously when these are the circumstances, any artist is being smothered and choked by the need for cash, and something like the Auteur Theory seems pointless and arcane in such an environment. But it shouldn’t be.
Fine, auteurs exist, but I would not attribute value in a way as to say auteur over committee as a general rule leads to greater films… M Night’s Lady in the Water, I’m sorry Henrik, was a disaster primarily because no one stopped him at a screenplay level, or he refused to take any advice on how to proceed.
there are lots of films made by a concerted effort of many that despite their origins, despite our desire for hero worship of the singular artist, provide something of equal or greater value. Thats why I think it is not so important of putting ownership on the work, except as shorthand to convey something else… it should not be the shorthand for value, but of a technique. Cutaway all of the gossip and who did what and how, and look at the finished product and let it demonstrate its own merits.
I would accuse you of sometimes letting your man crush on M Night cloud your vision when it comes to how well his works actually pull off what they aspire to do. I just do not see how Lady in the Water is a success in any way.
“Fine, auteurs exist, but I would not attribute value in a way as to say auteur over committee as a general rule leads to greater films”
I have never made this statement. But the accountability that it does lead to is absolutely essential to artists and audiences everywhere. Obviously the reaction will be subjective, but you will know who to love or hate for the final product. And you will know what to avoid.
I actually rewatched Lady in the Water with two filmfriends on monday, and they both hated it even though we were high. Watching it in a setting like that made me self-conscious about the film and all its shortcomings. My theatre experience was definitely coloured by the negative reaction, but there are things about the movie that work – most notably the music which is extraordinary. The craft is impeccable in cinematography and mise-en-scene (is there a less pretentious word to describe the same thing?) and while I don’t think it’s a completely success, it’s a good movie. Better than Iron Man, better than Pirates of the Caribbean, more interesting than The Dark Knight etc. That is the context to put it in, and the ambition of Lady in the Water is far greater than any other summer movie I can remember in years – for that I respect Shyamalan even if he fails in certain regards. But I enjoy Lady in the Water, I enjoy the borderline hatred for audiences that it exudes, I laugh at his insults and I sympathize with his self-pity.
What makes a great film anyway? Obviously it will be different strokes for different folks. But without accountability, where the fuck are we? In the cesspool of the free market, where people get away with murder while taking credit for saving the world. I want accountability. I want artists. I want to kick the talentless ones out, and I want to celebrate the talented ones. Throughout history, it has always come to pass that true artists in the end grew tired of shielding themselves with a lack of accountability and stopped making excuses about the man holding them down, went out, did something extraordinary, and were judged on their own merits. If they were talented, they survived and if they weren’t, they didn’t. That today can sustain even talentless artists, like Kevin Smith who got rich despite having nothing interesting to say and no interesting way of saying it, is a sad fact of life, and my points are getting muddled, but what it boils down to is accountability. It’s personal integrity. It’s not doing something that you don’t like, that you don’t want to, that you can’t stand for. The amount of people who are able to do such things fucking BOGGLES my mind. I can’t understand it.
Do what you want, get judged. If you get burned, live with it. In the end, all that you have is yourself in the world. You can not compromise your self. If you do, you’re unworthy of the existence you were lucky enough to have.
Lady in the Water is horrible cinema. People should watch great movies…
like Spider-Man 3.
Hey andy, not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but I think Spider-Man 3 is awesome as well!
And sorry for writing such long, boring comments. If only there was a way to insert pictures of chicks eating eachother out to keep people interested.