Difference here, I think it's worth noting, is that Scott doesn't write his films; Cameron does. (This is probably Cameron's biggest fault as a filmmaker--he's too proud to hand over the reins to someone more competent, even though his films would be all the better for it if he did. Smart and logical, as well as visually spectacular. He gets props for continuing to hire James Horner to score his films, at least.)
I agree, it is important that Cmaeron's writes and Scott doesn't. When the film sucks under Comeron, it really is *all* his fault. Scotts just can't tell a good script from a bad one. Give him a good script and you have a decent chance of getting a masterpiece, give him a crap script and you get films thats are lovely and stupid.
Literary saboteur
Blog: http://www.robertmitchellevans.com/
HM X 5
SF X 3
F X 1
Current Rejection Streak: 0
I agree, it is important that Cmaeron's writes and Scott doesn't. When the film sucks under Comeron, it really is *all* his fault. Scotts just can't tell a good script from a bad one. Give him a good script and you have a decent chance of getting a masterpiece, give him a crap script and you get films thats are lovely and stupid.
Hard to argue with you, there. Scott's whole career is testament to that. Hard to beat the original cut of Alien.
