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.”
I mean, did people expect anything good from a sequel to a movie that literally didn’t need a sequel?
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.
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.
You mean that?
On average I do.
Luckily, they didn’t really bother making a sequel, they just remade the original and pretended it was a new film.
Wow. Even worse! Haha.
Especially as some of the recycled plot points make no sense with the slightly tweaked setting.
What is this Avatar? New blue, new you.
Couldn’t even do a new biome smh
Apparently, the comments were taken out of context. It’s from a 2 hour interview, edited down to 30 minutes. Hence the confusion.
That podcast did him dirty.
They made a gladiator 2? But wasnt he dead, doing a ghostly backstroke atop grassy fields at the end? Who’s he fighting now, Hades?
It’s not him. The other characters are still in it and it’s based around the Colosseum with the politics and training and slavery etc if the first.
I dunno, from what little I’ve seen of Ridley Scotts newer films, they don’t live up to his older works.
I’d say they feel uninspired by comparison.
G2 sucked and was dull. I’m no film buff to say it was the cameras fault, but it sucked.
And I bet he didn’t even use sharp swords for the fights /s
Coward!
Are you trying to tell me, they don’t really kill all those people in the movies?
Those lazy directors keep using props and trick shots.
Being SLaMmEd for being lazy
Oh the delicious irony
