Has Ridley manned up at last?

You know, opposing what is standart is pretty much what a thinker does... and artists [thinkers], and scientists [thinkers], and pretty much anyone who has a brain [and uses it].

professionals only get better under pressure..

What entitles you to determine that issues of female empowerment are a "bandwagon" and that Ridley Scott would, "jump", upon it? Perhaps he is genuinely interested in those issues from a dramatic and philosophical point of view? And if he is genuinely interested in those issues, why would that be to the detriment of his talent? "Poor guy"? There isn't a Nikkita holding a gun to his head telling him to make it more about the ladies?... I'm a little confused as to what the Hell it is you are actually saying - and what year you think this is.

That's one thing I have to give to George Lucas. He stuck to genres he knew would work. That said, yes, the prequels were a total mess. but at least he wasn't trying to go into a genre he was unfamiliar with, such as the crime drama genre. Ridley is a master artist, but he proved his mettle with science fiction. It's his bread and butter...Granted, every artist must be willing to step outside their comfort zone, but when you have made two of science fiction's greatest film masterpieces, it's always a good idea to not veer too far away from what you know. I'd have loved to have seen his treatment of stories such as Total Recall, Minority Report, A.I., and even Stargate. As for the idea that he's jumping on the bandwagon of female empowerment, personally I've never seen it that way...He's just another great storyteller who puts together the best group of performers he can regardless of gender.

[img]http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0070/7032/files/wat_grande.jpg?113123[/img]

[img]http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0070/7032/files/wat_grande.jpg[/img] Givin takka a hand here.......

Allinaclamberad, is that name right? Can't be arsed to scroll up. I'm quite interested in all things political, social, relevant to the day. . . whatever. I'm merely speculating that there are bigger things to ponder than current trends is all. Not meaning to be detrimental, if it came out that way then I don't apologize. I just happen to think Scott is the one director that can handle outer worldly/ universally big philosophically questions. It has taken thirty years to tackle the HUGE issue of the Space Jockey, y'know? I never thought it would be done. Imagine if that wasn't the case?

I should of downsized his other stuff too, not just his G I Jones and THelma and Louise (which is great). . . .I loved Gladiator, that rocked man. But looking back, it all pales terribly to the importance, scope and intelligence of Alien and Bladerunner. Or am I wrong? Are these movies revered and respected as much? If so, I had no idea.

Haydn, I don't think using Sigourney Weaver was destructive of anything. It was part of the overall genius of the movie. But I do agree to a certain extant that Scott in his later flicks handles gender issues in flicks like Thelma and Louise and GI Jane with all the style of a hammer. In 1972, the hammer may have been needed, but by the 90s/2000s the tropes he uses are cliched and uninteresting (Obviously I disagree that Thelma and Louise is great. For me it is downright vomit inducing and will age about as well as Joan Rivers). When Scott tries to be so heavily socially conscious or tries to overlay what is a good popcorn flick (Gladiator) with supposed social critiques (aren't we the audience supposed to be just like those blood hungry folks watching the games . . . "is this what you want!?!?!" wow, heavy, man), he just turns me off. Now, metaphysical, existential questions are different. I think Scott has a talent for these, and for the first time in a long time I am eager for both a Scott movie and a mainstream Hollywood one.

@haydn ... the fuck ...