PDA

View Full Version : Better director - Ridley Scott or James Cameron?


Nick
10-03-2010, 12:50 PM
My buddy and I were just debating this the other day. Who is the better director, James Cameron or Ridley Scott?

I think Scott is the better director overall, but Cameron is more consistent. Scott has some absolutely iconic films that have changed the industry(Blade Runner, Alien), but he's also had some pretty terrible movies too(Hannibal, GI Jane). Cameron doesn't hit the highs that Scott did, but he also doesn't come near the lows either.

I also think Scott is more adventurous than Cameron is as well. Besides Titanic, Cameron has pretty much only done sci fi movies, where Scott has covered the whole spectrum.

Dustin S.
10-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Black Hawk Down, greatest movie ever made.

However I dont think either director is really out of this world at all, let alone both look like they can be douchbags.

I mean you have James Cameron that cant do anything not based on a standard love story. Avatar itself wasnt that creative, it was just pocohontus on steroids. If you want to talk about the visuals being out of this world, then you have no idea what makes a good movie or have never watched a Tim Burton/Michal Bay movie. Your always told to "make what you like" but come on. I love war movies, action movies, yet ive still written a love story and a comedy, and several other things that ive enjoyed. It takes skill to create a story, its just fun to create visuals.

So in this case Scott takes the cake because of purely being capable of exploring EVERYTHING and have success with EVERYTHING without following the same basic procudure with all his stuff. And like I said, Black Hawk Down is probably one of the greatest movies ever made.

There are so many better directors though. Troy Duffy stomps all over them with Boondock Saints, Tim Burton (alice in wonderland blows away Avatar), and of course Clint Eastwood.

Might as well ask if Michal Bay is better than these two.

Nick
10-03-2010, 02:42 PM
I dunno, I think you're severely underplaying the importance of visuals. Both Scott and Cameron have an uncanny ability to create masterfully realized worlds. Especially Scott, his artistic vision is amazing, the world he established in Blade Runner was just so well thought out, it had me absolutely enraptured.

At any rate, I'll agree that neither of them are in the top 5 directors of all time, but come on, Michael Bay :P Thats some gross hyperbole :P

Dustin S.
10-03-2010, 04:05 PM
Your thinking visuals wrong. If its a thought out world with in depth things and everything is thought out to help the story, thats differnt. Meanwhile giant blue people in a forest with sparkles all over it doesnt make a great movie.

If we are not giving Bay credit for his Transformers being badass, we are not giving Cameron credit for his giant blue freaks.

A movie starts as a script, nothing more than a story, from those 100 or so pages is your great or horrible movie. You cant make a good movie from a horrible script( story).

slappindabass
24-03-2010, 06:09 PM
James Cameron gave us The Terminator. But Scott gave us Gladiator.

Therefore....its a tie