Ridley Scott vs Peter Jackson

[Dfddfdf]

Which director do you like more?

 

[snoopy7548]

Ridley Scott if only for Blade Runner. Peter Jackson did direct Braindead (Dead Alive), though, so it's a tough one.

 

[NTMBK]

I mean, have you seen the Hobbit?

 

[SKORPI0]

Ridley Scott movies >>>>>> Peter Jackson movies. Everyone knows this.

 

[zinfamous]

Ridley Scott if only for Blade Runner. Peter Jackson did direct Braindead (Dead Alive), though, so it's a tough one.

lots of other great stuff:
Alien
Thelma and Louise
Turner and Hooch
Gladiator


I may have invented one of those...

 

[brianmanahan]

granted, ridley scott had some good stuff

but peter jackson's LotR trilogy automatically trumps anything else IMHO

i went to see each of those things 5 or 6 times in theaters when they came out

so i vote peter

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Lord of the Rings is the only reason Peter Jackson is in the conversation. Ridley Scott has directed far more great movies, so he gets my vote.

LOTR are my favorite movies of all time, so it does tip the scale back somewhat.

 

[pmv]

Not particularly a fan of LoTR, so it's not a difficult choice for me.

(Though I didn't mind the movies, they were watchable enough, when I've never felt inclined to read the books, and feel negative about what I've picked up about them from cultural osmosis, so I guess that means PJ did a decent job)

 

[pmv]

LoTRs just reeks of early 20th century British social attitudes, which puts me off. Even in the movie the use of accents seemed quite telling (Samwyse the stout Mummerset yeoman, Frodo the well-spoken upper-middle-class kid, most of the villainous characters having proletarian accents, Gandalf stentorian thespian).
Conversely, Ridley Scott made a great choice with realising Alien was about "truckers in space", blue-collar guys just doing a job and dealing with something out-of-this-world, without the overly portentous 'deep and important' tone typical of SF (that did unfortunately come in with Prometheus).

 

[brianmanahan]

LoTRs just reeks of early 20th century British social attitudes, which puts me off

that's part of the fun imho

 

[SKORPI0]

but peter jackson's LotR trilogy automatically trumps anything else IMHO

i went to see each of those things 5 or 6 times in theaters when they came out

so i vote peter

I actually have the LoTR and 3 Hobbit movies (Unexpected/Smaug/Five Armies in 4K (Extended Editions). Eyecandy to me, but I prefer some (not all) the Ridley Scott movies.

 

[BudAshes]

LOTR are my 3 favorite movies of all time.

But the hobbit movies are 3 of my least favorite. Now that being said it wasn't entirely Peter Jackson's fault as they were supposed to be directed by someone else and he got handed them at the last minute. Not to mention the source material is enough for one movie not 3.

As for Ridley Scott, he has some all time classics.

But he also directed Prometheus and it's sequel which were hot garbage so his recent track record isn't good.

I'll give them a tie.

 

[Captante]

I prefer Peter Jackson but not by a whole lot.

 

[snoopy7548]

lots of other great stuff:
Alien
Thelma and Louise
Turner and Hooch
Gladiator


I may have invented one of those...

You forgot The Terminator 1 and 2.

 

[zinfamous]

You forgot The Terminator 1 and 2.

On a serious note, people were meh/don't remember Kingdom of Heaven, but the DC of that is excellent. One of his best, really.

His Robin Hood was indeed meh, however.

 

[IronWing]

Rawson Marshall Thurber > Ridley Scott >>>> Peter Jackson

LotR movies were okay, but not great film making. The Hobbit was terribad.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Ridley Scott. Peter Jackson did an excellent treatment of LOTR, along with writers that did an excellent treatment of the source material, but Alien and Aliens are masterworks, at the top of their fields in both Horror and Action movies. There wasn't source material for that, and specific direction decisions enhanced the movies (like not telling the actors about the chestburster scene).

As a note, Peter Jackson was not responsible for the Hobbit mess. They're only as good as they are because it was unfucked as much as possible without reshooting all 3.

 

[Captante]

Rawson Marshall Thurber > Ridley Scott >>>> Peter Jackson

LotR movies were okay, but not great film making. The Hobbit was terribad.

It wasn't the worst LotR movie ... it just wasn't the Hobbit!

 

[dainthomas]

On a serious note, people were meh/don't remember Kingdom of Heaven, but the DC of that is excellent. One of his best, really.

His Robin Hood was indeed meh, however.

Eva Green was so f'in hot in Kingdom of Heaven. But yeah, the cinematography and everything of that movie was great.

I think if PJ had been given Hobbit from the start it would have been much better. The script would have certainly been much different and he'd have been able to do a lot more practical effects instead of the generally not great cgi in the movies.

 

[Ajay]

On a serious note, people were meh/don't remember Kingdom of Heaven, but the DC of that is excellent. One of his best, really.

I agree, I've watched it 3 times. So, for tons of reason, Ridley Scott.

 

[DigDog]

copypastarino

1977	The Duellists	good
1979	Alien	superb
1982	Blade Runner	superb
1985	Legend	eh .. not terrible
1987	Someone to Watch Over Me	n/a
1989	Black Rain	ok
1991	Thelma & Louise	not terrible
1992	1492: Conquest of Paradise	n/a
1996	White Squall	n/a
1997	G.I. Jane	i like it more than i'm willing to admit
2000	Gladiator	it's not terrible
2001	Hannibal	n/a - i heard bad reviews
2001	Black Hawk Down	pretty darn good
2003	Matchstick Men	not terrible
2005	Kingdom of Heaven	no
2006	A Good Year	N/A
2007	American Gangster	superb
2008	Body of Lies	can't even remember
2010	Robin Hood	N/A
2012	Prometheus	no
2013	The Counselor	NO
2014	Exodus: Gods and Kings	NO
2015	The Martian	boring
2017	Alien: Covenant	no no no

to me, the guy has done 3 of the world's best films, and the quality of Alien, Blade Runner and American Gangster can't be touched by LOTR. the LOTR films are about guys dressed up as orcs, and a decent story yes, but they have none of the film qualities that Scott's best films have, they are basically big live-action cartoons.

 

[NTMBK]

Oh god, I forgot about Exodus: Gods and Kings. Is it too late to change my vote to Peej?

 

[MrSquished]

I think the three LOTR movies are amazing, and in fact just started re-watching them now that they are in 4K HDR. The battle scene in the second film is one of the best of all time. I did think the Sam-Frodo bond got a bit too played out in the last film but overall a brilliant trilogy. But Ridley Scott simply has a larger body of work with more good movies, some great, some bad but even some somewhat above average movies that were still entertaining.

 

[zinfamous]

Ridley Scott. Peter Jackson did an excellent treatment of LOTR, along with writers that did an excellent treatment of the source material, but Alien and Aliens are masterworks, at the top of their fields in both Horror and Action movies. There wasn't source material for that, and specific direction decisions enhanced the movies (like not telling the actors about the chestburster scene).

As a note, Peter Jackson was not responsible for the Hobbit mess. They're only as good as they are because it was unfucked as much as possible without reshooting all 3.

Aliens was James Cameron. That's why it's more "actiony"

 

[zinfamous]

Also, another reminder that Prometheus was awesome. You guys suck.

(Seriously, watch Alien again, because I bet it's been a long time for most of you--because in that "perfect" film, all the dumb people do all the same dumb things that all of you bitch about the characters in Prometheus doing when encountering that strange lifeform(s))