WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.580 Welcome to the Deep Dive, where we take a monumental 00:00:02.580 --> 00:00:05.500 career, run it through a stack of sources, articles, 00:00:05.759 --> 00:00:08.380 research, technical analysis, and deliver you 00:00:08.380 --> 00:00:11.859 the most crucial insights. And today, we are 00:00:11.859 --> 00:00:14.839 immersing ourselves fully in the visionary world. 00:00:15.199 --> 00:00:17.359 of Sir Ridley Scott. We really are. We're looking 00:00:17.359 --> 00:00:20.079 at a filmmaker who has, I mean, he's essentially 00:00:20.079 --> 00:00:22.719 written the blueprint for a contemporary cinematic 00:00:22.719 --> 00:00:24.920 atmosphere. That's the perfect word for it, a 00:00:24.920 --> 00:00:28.379 blueprint. Scott is a true master of creating 00:00:28.379 --> 00:00:31.500 these incredibly dense, you know, concentrated 00:00:31.500 --> 00:00:34.439 visual world. Right. But what makes his achievement 00:00:34.439 --> 00:00:37.560 so staggering is that he pulls this off across 00:00:37.560 --> 00:00:40.880 wildly different genres. We're talking claustrophobic 00:00:40.880 --> 00:00:44.119 sci -fi. Neon -soaked neo -noir, sprawling crime 00:00:44.119 --> 00:00:46.759 dramas, and of course these massive, meticulously 00:00:46.759 --> 00:00:49.359 researched historical epics. Absolutely. And 00:00:49.359 --> 00:00:51.640 the numbers alone, they really confirm his commercial 00:00:51.640 --> 00:00:53.439 mastery. I mean, his films have collectively 00:00:53.439 --> 00:00:56.520 generated a box office revenue of over $5 billion 00:00:56.520 --> 00:01:00.000 worldwide. $5 billion? That's incredible. It 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:02.780 is. It places him firmly among the highest -grossing 00:01:02.780 --> 00:01:05.480 directors working today. So our mission for this 00:01:05.480 --> 00:01:07.840 deep dive is to take his decades -long career 00:01:07.840 --> 00:01:11.230 and just sort of... quickly glean the most essential 00:01:11.230 --> 00:01:13.810 takeaways. To really pinpoint what shaped him. 00:01:13.870 --> 00:01:16.909 Exactly. The key influences, the technical innovations 00:01:16.909 --> 00:01:21.209 he pushed, and that unique artistic DNA that 00:01:21.209 --> 00:01:23.870 makes his work instantly recognizable and... 00:01:24.040 --> 00:01:26.239 frankly, unforgettable. It's fascinating how 00:01:26.239 --> 00:01:28.439 he operates, isn't it? He's not just a director. 00:01:28.659 --> 00:01:32.200 He's a visual historian and a futuristic architect 00:01:32.200 --> 00:01:35.000 all rolled into one. He really acts as our guide 00:01:35.000 --> 00:01:37.219 across time and space. I mean, think about the 00:01:37.219 --> 00:01:39.359 range. He can take you from the gritty, authentic 00:01:39.359 --> 00:01:42.480 second century Rome of Gladiator all the way 00:01:42.480 --> 00:01:45.359 to the oppressive, rainy, futuristic Los Angeles 00:01:45.359 --> 00:01:47.959 of Blade Runner. And then pivot to 12th century 00:01:47.959 --> 00:01:50.299 Jerusalem. Exactly. And Kingdom of Heaven. Or 00:01:50.299 --> 00:01:53.180 the chaos of Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down. This 00:01:53.180 --> 00:01:55.400 is a career defined by, I think, a relentless 00:01:55.400 --> 00:01:58.280 technical perfectionism. For sure. And crucially, 00:01:58.299 --> 00:02:01.319 a persistent drive for narrative control. And 00:02:01.319 --> 00:02:03.659 that drive is so strong that it often results 00:02:03.659 --> 00:02:06.500 in him releasing multiple definitive director's 00:02:06.500 --> 00:02:08.419 cuts of his work. Just to make sure that his 00:02:08.419 --> 00:02:11.210 initial vision is preserved. Precisely. And his 00:02:11.210 --> 00:02:13.729 mastery has been recognized at the highest levels. 00:02:13.909 --> 00:02:16.530 I mean, if you look at his early acclaim, he 00:02:16.530 --> 00:02:19.629 was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II back in 2003. 00:02:19.949 --> 00:02:21.650 For services to the British film industry, right? 00:02:21.710 --> 00:02:24.430 That's it. And then just this past year, in 2024, 00:02:24.750 --> 00:02:26.990 he was appointed a Knight Grand Cross by King 00:02:26.990 --> 00:02:30.110 Charles III. Wow. But beyond the titles, I think 00:02:30.110 --> 00:02:32.490 the real measure of his cultural longevity lies 00:02:32.490 --> 00:02:35.409 in preservation. Three of his most iconic films, 00:02:35.669 --> 00:02:39.650 Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma and Louise, are 00:02:39.650 --> 00:02:42.229 all preserved in the United States National Film 00:02:42.229 --> 00:02:44.650 Registry. And that's a huge deal. That's the 00:02:44.650 --> 00:02:47.389 Library of Congress saying these films are culturally, 00:02:47.610 --> 00:02:50.250 historically, or aesthetically significant. Right. 00:02:50.389 --> 00:02:52.629 That recognition, especially for a director who 00:02:52.629 --> 00:02:55.810 is still actively working at this level, it just 00:02:55.810 --> 00:02:58.370 speaks volumes. It affirms that his visual influence 00:02:58.370 --> 00:03:00.849 isn't temporary. It has fundamentally altered 00:03:00.849 --> 00:03:03.030 how we see things, especially science fiction 00:03:03.030 --> 00:03:06.060 and the portrayal of women in cinema. OK, let's 00:03:06.060 --> 00:03:08.960 unpack this. So to really understand the genivus 00:03:08.960 --> 00:03:11.120 of this visual mastermind, we have to look at 00:03:11.120 --> 00:03:14.500 his origins. He was born in 1937, raised in a 00:03:14.500 --> 00:03:16.860 military family. A very regimented one. His father 00:03:16.860 --> 00:03:19.780 was a colonel and the royal engineers. Yeah, 00:03:19.860 --> 00:03:22.039 and frequently absent, especially during and 00:03:22.039 --> 00:03:24.639 after World War II. And this absence created 00:03:24.639 --> 00:03:27.360 a really unique dynamic at home where everything 00:03:27.360 --> 00:03:30.099 centered on his mother, Elizabeth. And this is 00:03:30.099 --> 00:03:32.099 such a critical detail for understanding his 00:03:32.099 --> 00:03:34.719 work, isn't it? His mother, Elizabeth, was a 00:03:34.719 --> 00:03:37.680 miner's daughter, and Scott credits her as his 00:03:37.680 --> 00:03:40.680 first powerful female role model. He talks about 00:03:40.680 --> 00:03:43.620 it all the time. He does. He explicitly discusses 00:03:43.620 --> 00:03:46.120 how he respected her toughness, her independence, 00:03:46.500 --> 00:03:48.979 and the fact that she was, in his words, the 00:03:48.979 --> 00:03:51.919 boss. She laid down the law. And that personal 00:03:51.919 --> 00:03:54.000 experience, that's the source of his lifelong 00:03:54.000 --> 00:03:56.319 commitment to developing these strong, independent 00:03:56.319 --> 00:03:58.979 female protagonists. It's the through line. It 00:03:58.979 --> 00:04:01.699 explains Ripley and Alien. It explains Thelma 00:04:01.699 --> 00:04:04.580 and Lise. It informs almost every major creative 00:04:04.580 --> 00:04:07.300 decision he's made about his leads. Right. But 00:04:07.300 --> 00:04:09.639 what really set him on this path of being a world 00:04:09.639 --> 00:04:11.979 builder was his early exposure to genre fiction. 00:04:12.259 --> 00:04:15.500 That initial spark came from literature. Specifically... 00:04:16.350 --> 00:04:18.930 The foundational sci -fi novels of H .G. Wells. 00:04:19.129 --> 00:04:21.149 And classic films too, like The Day the Earth 00:04:21.149 --> 00:04:23.709 Stood Still. Right. But the definitive moment, 00:04:23.910 --> 00:04:26.410 the one where he saw the potential for serious 00:04:26.410 --> 00:04:30.470 epic cinema, was seeing Kubrick's 2001 A Space 00:04:30.470 --> 00:04:32.709 Odyssey. That changed everything for him. It 00:04:32.709 --> 00:04:34.329 was visually and narratively groundbreaking. 00:04:34.829 --> 00:04:37.209 Scott looked at that film and he recalled thinking, 00:04:37.449 --> 00:04:40.680 once I saw that, I knew what I could do. It wasn't 00:04:40.680 --> 00:04:43.639 about imitation. It was about recognizing a new, 00:04:43.740 --> 00:04:46.860 serious form of cinema that matched his own design 00:04:46.860 --> 00:04:49.439 capabilities. And that capability brings us to 00:04:49.439 --> 00:04:51.199 the most enduring element of his foundation, 00:04:51.500 --> 00:04:54.620 his roots in fine art. He's an alumnus of the 00:04:54.620 --> 00:04:57.000 Royal College of Art in London. And unlike so 00:04:57.000 --> 00:04:59.800 many other directors, he is consistently maintained, 00:05:00.100 --> 00:05:02.579 and I'm quoting him here, I use everything I 00:05:02.579 --> 00:05:04.899 learned every day at art school. You can see 00:05:04.899 --> 00:05:07.329 it. His approach to cinematography, blocking, 00:05:07.610 --> 00:05:09.949 lighting, it's fundamentally that of a painter. 00:05:10.449 --> 00:05:13.329 Exactly. When we talk about his unique visual 00:05:13.329 --> 00:05:16.009 DNA, we are literally talking about techniques 00:05:16.009 --> 00:05:19.490 learned in art school. For instance, he's a master 00:05:19.490 --> 00:05:22.689 of chiaroscuro. that extreme contrast of light 00:05:22.689 --> 00:05:25.129 and shadow you see in Caravaggio paintings. You 00:05:25.129 --> 00:05:27.170 see it in the dramatic shadows in Blade Runner, 00:05:27.389 --> 00:05:30.889 the deep space blackness in Alien. And we have 00:05:30.889 --> 00:05:32.910 this phenomenal anecdote that just perfectly 00:05:32.910 --> 00:05:36.350 illustrates this direct link between his training 00:05:36.350 --> 00:05:39.350 and his fictional worlds. The one from Les Hartlepool. 00:05:39.629 --> 00:05:41.670 That's the one. He earned his diploma there, 00:05:41.810 --> 00:05:44.230 and the source material highlights the industrial 00:05:44.230 --> 00:05:46.769 landscape surrounding the college, specifically 00:05:46.769 --> 00:05:49.910 the vast, sprawling steelworks. As the direct 00:05:49.910 --> 00:05:52.709 inspiration for the look of Los Angeles in Blade 00:05:52.709 --> 00:05:54.470 Runner. The direct inspiration. He described 00:05:54.470 --> 00:05:57.170 those mills and the industrial grime as magnificent, 00:05:57.410 --> 00:06:00.629 beautiful. The darker and more ominous it got, 00:06:00.730 --> 00:06:02.689 the more interesting it got. That's the key right 00:06:02.689 --> 00:06:05.230 there. Finding dark, looming beauty in industrial 00:06:05.230 --> 00:06:08.490 decay. That's the genesis of his entire neo -noir 00:06:08.490 --> 00:06:10.810 aesthetic. He didn't just design the future. 00:06:10.910 --> 00:06:12.529 He photographed it like a Renaissance painting. 00:06:12.829 --> 00:06:15.709 That visual focus carried him right into his 00:06:15.709 --> 00:06:18.430 professional career. After graduating in 63, 00:06:18.769 --> 00:06:21.449 his first big job was as a trainee set designer 00:06:21.449 --> 00:06:25.810 with the BBC. He cut his teeth on popular shows 00:06:25.810 --> 00:06:28.670 like Z Cars and Out of the Unknown. And this 00:06:28.670 --> 00:06:30.389 is where we get that great piece of film trivia. 00:06:30.790 --> 00:06:33.569 He narrowly missed designing one of the most 00:06:33.569 --> 00:06:36.930 iconic alien species ever. The Daleks. The Daleks. 00:06:37.009 --> 00:06:39.170 He was originally assigned to design the creatures 00:06:39.170 --> 00:06:41.750 for the second Doctor Who serial, but a last 00:06:41.750 --> 00:06:43.750 -minute schedule conflict pulled him off the 00:06:43.750 --> 00:06:46.509 project. So in some alternate universe, Ridley 00:06:46.509 --> 00:06:48.370 Scott's name is on the design for the Daleks. 00:06:48.410 --> 00:06:50.470 Can you imagine? Thankfully, perhaps for his 00:06:50.470 --> 00:06:53.089 own career, that near -miss... led him away from 00:06:53.089 --> 00:06:55.269 the BBC and into creating his own commercial 00:06:55.269 --> 00:06:58.709 powerhouse. This is the RSA era. In 1968, he 00:06:58.709 --> 00:07:01.089 and his younger brother, Tony Scott, who became 00:07:01.089 --> 00:07:03.490 a huge director in his own right, founded Ridley 00:07:03.490 --> 00:07:06.490 Scott Associates, or RSA. And the work that came 00:07:06.490 --> 00:07:09.029 out of RSA in the 70s was just legendary. It 00:07:09.029 --> 00:07:10.769 became a training ground for so many other talents. 00:07:11.170 --> 00:07:13.230 But to really get the impact of RSA, you have 00:07:13.230 --> 00:07:15.629 to look at their advertising work. Two key examples 00:07:15.629 --> 00:07:18.430 stand out. The first one is universally recognized 00:07:18.430 --> 00:07:23.430 in the UK. The 1973 Hovis bread ad. Bike round. 00:07:23.610 --> 00:07:26.209 Bike round, that's it. It shows a boy pushing 00:07:26.209 --> 00:07:28.850 his bike up that impossibly steep cobbled hill 00:07:28.850 --> 00:07:32.209 in Shaftesbury, set to Duvaugac's New World Symphony. 00:07:32.610 --> 00:07:37.089 It's pure, powerful nostalgia. That ad was voted 00:07:37.089 --> 00:07:40.629 the UK's favorite commercial in a 2006 poll. 00:07:41.240 --> 00:07:44.379 Think about that. A TV ad with cultural longevity 00:07:44.379 --> 00:07:46.720 spanning over three decades. It speaks to his 00:07:46.720 --> 00:07:49.379 visual storytelling, even in 60 seconds. And 00:07:49.379 --> 00:07:51.720 the second example shows his ability to revitalize 00:07:51.720 --> 00:07:54.800 a brand. Chanel No. 5. Yep. He directed a series 00:07:54.800 --> 00:07:57.459 of inventive, high -production -value mini -films 00:07:57.459 --> 00:07:59.379 for them throughout the 70s and 80s. The sources 00:07:59.379 --> 00:08:01.240 say Chanel was starting to look a bit, you know, 00:08:01.259 --> 00:08:04.209 passé. But Scott's commercials full of surreal 00:08:04.209 --> 00:08:06.569 fantasy and this hired aesthetic, they just completely 00:08:06.569 --> 00:08:08.990 revitalized the brand. And it remains a family 00:08:08.990 --> 00:08:11.670 affair, which says a lot about RSA. Five members 00:08:11.670 --> 00:08:13.569 of the Scott family, Ridley, his late brother, 00:08:13.689 --> 00:08:16.410 Tony, and his three kids, Jake, Luke and Jordan, 00:08:16.529 --> 00:08:18.589 are all directors who have worked for the company. 00:08:18.769 --> 00:08:21.050 That visual talent clearly runs deep in the family. 00:08:21.170 --> 00:08:24.730 So that success in commercials gave him the technical 00:08:24.730 --> 00:08:27.540 confidence and I guess. The financial stability 00:08:27.540 --> 00:08:30.420 to jump into his feature film career. Which began 00:08:30.420 --> 00:08:32.940 with a niche but incredibly beautiful debut. 00:08:33.220 --> 00:08:37.360 The Duelists in 1977. Shot entirely on location 00:08:37.360 --> 00:08:39.899 in Europe. set during the Napoleonic Wars, based 00:08:39.899 --> 00:08:42.419 on a Joseph Conrad novella. Right, The Duel. 00:08:42.500 --> 00:08:45.559 It chronicles this bitter, extended feud between 00:08:45.559 --> 00:08:48.500 two French Hussar officers that just drags on 00:08:48.500 --> 00:08:51.159 for 15 years. And while it wasn't a huge commercial 00:08:51.159 --> 00:08:53.759 hit initially, it was an immediate critical darling. 00:08:53.940 --> 00:08:56.860 It won Best Debut Film at Cannes. And it was 00:08:56.860 --> 00:08:59.779 acclaimed for its visual authenticity. The critics 00:08:59.779 --> 00:09:02.279 singled out the meticulous, historically accurate 00:09:02.279 --> 00:09:04.860 portrayal of the uniforms, the military conduct, 00:09:05.120 --> 00:09:07.340 everything. It established that even in his smaller 00:09:07.340 --> 00:09:09.480 films, the visual design had to be flawless. 00:09:09.779 --> 00:09:11.440 But the shift to global commercial dominance 00:09:11.440 --> 00:09:15.299 was abrupt. Very abrupt. The catalyst, as the 00:09:15.299 --> 00:09:17.399 sources clearly point out, was seeing the phenomena 00:09:17.399 --> 00:09:20.779 of Star Wars. He realized the potential for massive 00:09:20.779 --> 00:09:23.139 effects -driven cinema. And that realization 00:09:23.139 --> 00:09:26.559 led him directly to Alien in 1979. And it instantly 00:09:26.559 --> 00:09:29.539 became this terrifying visceral... global horror 00:09:29.539 --> 00:09:32.220 sci -fi success. The genius of Alien, though, 00:09:32.259 --> 00:09:34.580 it runs deeper than just the H .R. Giger creature 00:09:34.580 --> 00:09:37.360 designs or the claustrophobia of the ship. It 00:09:37.360 --> 00:09:39.519 was a crucial narrative decision he made. He 00:09:39.519 --> 00:09:42.139 switched the protagonist. Ellen Whipley was originally 00:09:42.139 --> 00:09:45.340 written as a standard male action hero. And he 00:09:45.340 --> 00:09:48.240 cast Sigourney Weaver, which was revolutionary 00:09:48.240 --> 00:09:51.820 in 1979. Ripley instantly became this enduring 00:09:51.820 --> 00:09:55.200 cinematic icon. She basically defined the modern 00:09:55.200 --> 00:09:57.899 female action hero. And of course, the chestburster 00:09:57.899 --> 00:10:00.179 scene. The sheer cultural shock of that scene 00:10:00.179 --> 00:10:03.220 cannot be overstated. When we talk about indelible 00:10:03.220 --> 00:10:05.820 cinematic moments, publications consistently 00:10:05.820 --> 00:10:08.720 cite that one sequence as one of the most memorable 00:10:08.720 --> 00:10:11.340 and shocking in history. It was a smash hit, 00:10:11.500 --> 00:10:14.960 sixth highest grossing film of 1979. It proved 00:10:14.960 --> 00:10:17.059 Scott could take his high art background and 00:10:17.059 --> 00:10:19.019 apply it to something terrifying and commercially 00:10:19.019 --> 00:10:22.500 explosive. And that blend of high art, terrifying 00:10:22.500 --> 00:10:25.779 realism, and philosophical depth, it found its 00:10:25.779 --> 00:10:27.960 ultimate expression three years later in Blade 00:10:27.960 --> 00:10:30.559 Runner. But the initial reception to Blade Runner 00:10:30.559 --> 00:10:32.919 tells a very, very different story than its legacy, 00:10:33.000 --> 00:10:36.059 doesn't it? Oh, absolutely. It's almost unbelievable 00:10:36.059 --> 00:10:39.220 now, given its status. But Blade Runner was a 00:10:39.220 --> 00:10:41.259 commercial failure when it first came out. And 00:10:41.259 --> 00:10:44.000 it got some really harsh criticism. The formidable 00:10:44.000 --> 00:10:47.320 Pauline Kael famously eviscerated it, calling 00:10:47.320 --> 00:10:49.940 it a suspenseless thriller. Someone else even 00:10:49.940 --> 00:10:52.059 gave it the nickname Blade Crawler because of 00:10:52.059 --> 00:10:55.019 its slow pace. And Scott's reaction to that criticism 00:10:55.019 --> 00:10:58.320 gives us such a crucial insight into his conviction. 00:10:58.620 --> 00:11:02.259 He found Kale's review so brutal that he framed 00:11:02.259 --> 00:11:05.399 it and kept it in his office for 30 years. As 00:11:05.399 --> 00:11:07.679 a reminder, he said he did it to remind himself 00:11:07.679 --> 00:11:09.720 that, quote, there's only one critic that counts, 00:11:09.840 --> 00:11:11.840 and that's you. And he hasn't read critiques 00:11:11.840 --> 00:11:14.740 since. That's conviction. But you have to ask, 00:11:14.860 --> 00:11:18.240 is there a risk that ignoring all outside criticism 00:11:18.720 --> 00:11:21.460 leads to insular filmmaking? That's a great question. 00:11:21.620 --> 00:11:24.299 Because conviction can easily become stubbornness. 00:11:24.500 --> 00:11:26.919 But in this case, his conviction was for a deeply 00:11:26.919 --> 00:11:30.139 personal, fully realized aesthetic that the world 00:11:30.139 --> 00:11:32.279 just wasn't ready for yet. It wasn't an aesthetic 00:11:32.279 --> 00:11:34.740 failure. It was a pacing and marketing failure. 00:11:35.100 --> 00:11:37.500 Exactly. And his willingness to weather that 00:11:37.500 --> 00:11:40.299 and then actively participate in the subsequent 00:11:40.299 --> 00:11:42.720 director's cuts, which got rid of the studio's 00:11:42.720 --> 00:11:45.860 happy ending and voiceover, that's what cemented 00:11:45.860 --> 00:11:48.190 its reputation. And today it's rightly regarded 00:11:48.190 --> 00:11:50.190 as one of the most important sci fi films ever 00:11:50.190 --> 00:11:53.129 made. It basically launched the cyberpunk genre. 00:11:53.509 --> 00:11:56.889 Scott himself calls it his most complete and 00:11:56.889 --> 00:11:59.480 personal film. The reason this film and the Alien 00:11:59.480 --> 00:12:01.919 franchise still resonates so much isn't just 00:12:01.919 --> 00:12:04.460 the visuals. It's because Scott is perpetually 00:12:04.460 --> 00:12:07.679 interrogating these profound philosophical questions 00:12:07.679 --> 00:12:10.799 about existence, especially through AI. Yes. 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:13.320 We really need to take a proper deep dive into 00:12:13.320 --> 00:12:15.360 the philosophy here. In films like Blade Runner, 00:12:15.600 --> 00:12:19.159 Alien, and later Prometheus and Covenant? Absolutely. 00:12:19.460 --> 00:12:21.840 He's not just making cool robots. He's exploring 00:12:21.840 --> 00:12:23.580 the nature of consciousness through his artificial 00:12:23.580 --> 00:12:27.159 life forms. The replicants? Ash. The scholarship 00:12:27.159 --> 00:12:29.820 around his work often places this cinematic tension 00:12:29.820 --> 00:12:32.340 within real -world philosophy and computer science. 00:12:32.639 --> 00:12:36.299 It does. His films engage directly with two major 00:12:36.299 --> 00:12:40.000 opposing concepts. First, Alan Turing's test 00:12:40.000 --> 00:12:42.240 for AI. If you can't tell if you're talking to 00:12:42.240 --> 00:12:44.320 a machine or a human, the machine is intelligent. 00:12:44.679 --> 00:12:46.919 And second, the Chinese room thought experiment. 00:12:47.440 --> 00:12:49.440 That's where it gets complicated. The Chinese 00:12:49.440 --> 00:12:51.320 room experiment challenges the whole premise 00:12:51.320 --> 00:12:54.120 of the Turing test. It suggests a computer might 00:12:54.120 --> 00:12:56.779 manipulate symbols, like translating Chinese, 00:12:57.240 --> 00:12:59.360 without genuinely understanding the meaning. 00:12:59.879 --> 00:13:02.759 So in Scott's world, this translates to the Voigtkampff 00:13:02.759 --> 00:13:05.139 test in Blade Runner. Can Decker tell if the 00:13:05.139 --> 00:13:07.320 replicant is just performing a motion brilliantly 00:13:07.320 --> 00:13:09.879 or actually feeling it? And the scholarly conclusion 00:13:09.879 --> 00:13:12.539 drawn from this is that simply passing a test 00:13:12.539 --> 00:13:15.200 of intelligence isn't enough. Any real measure 00:13:15.200 --> 00:13:18.299 of consciousness must also assess actions and... 00:13:18.600 --> 00:13:20.820 critically moral behavior. Which is why the final 00:13:20.820 --> 00:13:23.019 acts of his characters are so important. Is Roy 00:13:23.019 --> 00:13:25.080 Batty's decision to save Deckard a calculated 00:13:25.080 --> 00:13:27.539 move or an act of moral redemption? Is David 00:13:27.539 --> 00:13:29.879 Ait's relentless pursuit of creation a sign of 00:13:29.879 --> 00:13:32.500 true consciousness or just sophisticated programming? 00:13:33.100 --> 00:13:35.480 Scott forces you to confront the limits of these 00:13:35.480 --> 00:13:38.470 tests. That philosophical density is hidden under 00:13:38.470 --> 00:13:41.429 such powerful visual spectacle. And speaking 00:13:41.429 --> 00:13:43.889 of spectacle, he translated that same command 00:13:43.889 --> 00:13:46.570 into one of the most famous ads in history. We 00:13:46.570 --> 00:13:48.470 can't move past the 80s without talking about 00:13:48.470 --> 00:13:51.950 the 1984 Apple Macintosh commercial. A true advertising 00:13:51.950 --> 00:13:55.429 watershed moment. Scott directed it. The budget 00:13:55.429 --> 00:13:58.830 was enormous for the time, close to $900 ,000. 00:13:59.090 --> 00:14:02.049 And it only aired once nationally during the 00:14:02.049 --> 00:14:05.059 Super Bowl in 84. It wasn't just an ad. It was 00:14:05.059 --> 00:14:07.259 almost like political propaganda for commerce. 00:14:07.460 --> 00:14:10.399 It's universally considered a masterpiece. It 00:14:10.399 --> 00:14:13.639 was modeled on Orwell's 1984. It featured an 00:14:13.639 --> 00:14:16.340 athlete representing the Macintosh saving humanity 00:14:16.340 --> 00:14:19.100 by smashing a screen displaying Big Brother. 00:14:19.259 --> 00:14:21.899 Which was a clear provocative shot at IBM. It 00:14:21.899 --> 00:14:25.080 perfectly encapsulated Scott's aesthetic. Expensive 00:14:25.080 --> 00:14:28.230 anti -establishment. visually profound, and it 00:14:28.230 --> 00:14:31.429 delivered maximum unforgettable impact in 60 00:14:31.429 --> 00:14:33.990 seconds. So moving into the 1990s, Scott really 00:14:33.990 --> 00:14:35.889 needed a hit to show he could pivot away from 00:14:35.889 --> 00:14:37.669 science fiction. And he got it with what many 00:14:37.669 --> 00:14:40.009 people see as a masterpiece that completely revived 00:14:40.009 --> 00:14:43.429 his reputation. Thelma and Louise in 1991. What 00:14:43.429 --> 00:14:46.450 a film. It was a cultural earthquake and a massive 00:14:46.450 --> 00:14:49.210 critical success. Starring Geena Davis and Susan 00:14:49.210 --> 00:14:52.330 Sarandon in career -defining roles. And it was 00:14:52.330 --> 00:14:54.850 the breakthrough performance for a very young 00:14:54.850 --> 00:14:57.389 Brad Pitt. It earned Scott his first Academy 00:14:57.389 --> 00:15:00.389 Award nomination for Best Director. And its lasting 00:15:00.389 --> 00:15:03.929 legacy is its bold, uncompromising exploration 00:15:03.929 --> 00:15:08.279 of female agency and rebellion. One editor describes 00:15:08.279 --> 00:15:11.299 Scott as the movie's most consistent stealth 00:15:11.299 --> 00:15:13.500 feminist. It goes right back to the lessons from 00:15:13.500 --> 00:15:15.379 his mother. He wasn't just telling a story, he 00:15:15.379 --> 00:15:17.879 was making a statement. But despite that immense 00:15:17.879 --> 00:15:20.899 success, Hollywood careers are rarely a straight 00:15:20.899 --> 00:15:23.799 line. The sources highlight a significant commercial 00:15:23.799 --> 00:15:27.200 stumble right after. 1492, conquest of paradise 00:15:27.200 --> 00:15:30.320 in 1992. It was an expensive box office failure. 00:15:30.759 --> 00:15:33.100 And that failure led to a noticeable four -year 00:15:33.100 --> 00:15:35.600 gap before his next film. But this period wasn't 00:15:35.600 --> 00:15:38.120 downtime. It was strategic. During this time, 00:15:38.159 --> 00:15:40.419 he and his brother, Tony, formed Scott Free Productions 00:15:40.419 --> 00:15:43.480 in 1995. And crucially, they put their money 00:15:43.480 --> 00:15:45.799 into infrastructure. They bought a controlling 00:15:45.799 --> 00:15:47.919 interest in the legendary Shepperton Studios 00:15:47.919 --> 00:15:50.000 that same year. So they were essentially giving 00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:52.360 themselves control over the means of production 00:15:52.360 --> 00:15:56.039 to execute these monumental visions without constant 00:15:56.039 --> 00:15:58.440 studio interference. And that investment paid 00:15:58.440 --> 00:16:01.580 off spectacularly with Gladiator in 2000. It 00:16:01.580 --> 00:16:05.059 was a monumental career redefining hit. A massive 00:16:05.059 --> 00:16:07.820 critical and commercial success. It won five 00:16:07.820 --> 00:16:10.539 Oscars, including Best Picture, and got Scott 00:16:10.539 --> 00:16:13.179 his second nomination for Best Director. Its 00:16:13.179 --> 00:16:16.549 impact can't be overstated. It's widely credited 00:16:16.549 --> 00:16:19.409 with almost single -handedly reviving the entire 00:16:19.409 --> 00:16:23.730 sword and sandal historical epic genre. And Gladiator 00:16:23.730 --> 00:16:25.889 has a fascinating technical footnote that shows 00:16:25.889 --> 00:16:28.090 his relentless commitment to his vision, even 00:16:28.090 --> 00:16:30.570 when faced with tragedy. Oliver Reed. Oliver 00:16:30.570 --> 00:16:32.950 Reed, who played Proximo, died suddenly during 00:16:32.950 --> 00:16:35.389 filming. To complete his scenes, Scott's team 00:16:35.389 --> 00:16:37.370 worked with The Mill to create a digital body 00:16:37.370 --> 00:16:39.470 double of him. Which was pioneering stuff for 00:16:39.470 --> 00:16:41.690 the year 2000. This wasn't just a simple head 00:16:41.690 --> 00:16:43.950 replacement. It involved using existing footage. 00:16:44.429 --> 00:16:46.669 scanning his face, compositing new dialogue. 00:16:46.870 --> 00:16:49.210 It was incredibly complex and expensive. All 00:16:49.210 --> 00:16:51.649 to ensure the character's narrative arc was honored. 00:16:51.850 --> 00:16:54.690 And following Gladiator, he maintained this momentum, 00:16:55.029 --> 00:16:57.769 earning his third best director nomination for 00:16:57.769 --> 00:17:00.529 Black Hawk Down. A film that also featured a 00:17:00.529 --> 00:17:03.110 young Tom Hardy in his debut. And this momentum 00:17:03.110 --> 00:17:05.890 brings us to a crucial part of his artistic identity. 00:17:06.289 --> 00:17:10.750 His profound, almost obsessive need for director's 00:17:10.750 --> 00:17:13.549 cuts. The fight for narrative control over the 00:17:13.549 --> 00:17:16.150 final theatrical product. He frequently recuts 00:17:16.150 --> 00:17:17.930 his films, and his explanation is straightforward. 00:17:18.349 --> 00:17:21.069 To give the film added life is really cool. He 00:17:21.069 --> 00:17:23.349 doesn't want them to just disappear. And the 00:17:23.349 --> 00:17:25.869 success of the Blade Runner director's cut really 00:17:25.869 --> 00:17:28.450 encouraged him to revisit other films, like Legend. 00:17:28.630 --> 00:17:30.910 But the clearest, most compelling case study 00:17:30.910 --> 00:17:33.990 for this is Kingdom of Heaven from 2005. This 00:17:33.990 --> 00:17:36.619 film... About the Crusades, it really illustrates 00:17:36.619 --> 00:17:39.920 the immense pressure a director is under to compromise 00:17:39.920 --> 00:17:42.240 their vision for runtime and test audiences. 00:17:42.539 --> 00:17:44.559 Scott was deeply unhappy with the theatrical 00:17:44.559 --> 00:17:47.019 version. He blamed himself for listening too 00:17:47.019 --> 00:17:50.279 closely to nervous studio executives. He relented 00:17:50.279 --> 00:17:53.660 when Fox insisted that a massive 45 minutes be 00:17:53.660 --> 00:17:56.759 cut, and that 45 minutes stripped the film of 00:17:56.759 --> 00:17:59.759 crucial character motivation and political context. 00:18:00.099 --> 00:18:02.059 But when the director's cut was released on DVD, 00:18:02.440 --> 00:18:06.539 the reaction was trans - Critics completely reversed 00:18:06.539 --> 00:18:18.259 their initial negative reviews. Scott's quote 00:18:18.259 --> 00:18:20.740 on that experience was definitive. This is the 00:18:20.740 --> 00:18:24.480 one that should have gone out. The director's 00:18:24.480 --> 00:18:27.680 cut isn't just an extended version. It is, quite 00:18:27.680 --> 00:18:30.240 simply, the true version of the film he intended 00:18:30.240 --> 00:18:32.859 to make. When you really analyze Scott's directing 00:18:32.859 --> 00:18:35.019 style, the sources consistently highlight his 00:18:35.019 --> 00:18:37.519 highly concentrated visual style, the striking 00:18:37.519 --> 00:18:40.180 imagery, and his pioneering use of atmospheric 00:18:40.180 --> 00:18:42.960 lighting. A methodology that has profoundly influenced 00:18:42.960 --> 00:18:45.579 generations of filmmakers. I think James Cameron 00:18:45.579 --> 00:18:47.859 said Scott has a visceral sense that you're there, 00:18:47.900 --> 00:18:50.779 that you're present. Yeah. But despite this monumental 00:18:50.779 --> 00:18:54.920 visual focus, he is noted as a director who manages 00:18:54.920 --> 00:18:58.220 to prioritize the human element. Russell Crowe, 00:18:58.240 --> 00:19:00.559 his longtime collaborator, said that on a Scott 00:19:00.559 --> 00:19:04.579 set, the entire focus is on the performers. Charlize 00:19:04.579 --> 00:19:06.680 Theron said something similar about Prometheus. 00:19:07.339 --> 00:19:10.420 She praised his willingness to genuinely listen 00:19:10.420 --> 00:19:13.500 to cast suggestions on character depth, even 00:19:13.500 --> 00:19:16.079 late in the process. And that balance is the 00:19:16.079 --> 00:19:18.779 key to his large -scale work. When he's dealing 00:19:18.779 --> 00:19:20.980 with these colossal narratives, he consciously 00:19:20.980 --> 00:19:23.160 works to prevent his characters from getting 00:19:23.160 --> 00:19:25.700 swamped by the sheer scale of it all. He actually 00:19:25.700 --> 00:19:28.299 models his methodology on the legendary director 00:19:28.299 --> 00:19:31.339 David Lean. Right, Lawrence of Arabia, Dr. Zivago. 00:19:31.500 --> 00:19:33.880 Lean had this incredible ability to establish 00:19:33.880 --> 00:19:36.119 the vastness of the landscape while keeping an 00:19:36.119 --> 00:19:38.660 intimate connection to the characters. And Scott 00:19:38.660 --> 00:19:41.960 does that by using these wide shots to establish 00:19:41.960 --> 00:19:44.750 the overwhelming scale. the dust storms of Rome, 00:19:44.930 --> 00:19:47.369 the impossible architecture of the future. But 00:19:47.369 --> 00:19:49.630 then he always snaps back immediately to a tight 00:19:49.630 --> 00:19:52.150 close -up to ground you in the character's emotional 00:19:52.150 --> 00:19:54.950 reality. It ensures the spectacle serves the 00:19:54.950 --> 00:19:57.269 story, not the other way around. He also has 00:19:57.269 --> 00:19:59.970 this incredible reputation for efficiency, partly 00:19:59.970 --> 00:20:02.730 helped by his claimed eidetic memory. Which helps 00:20:02.730 --> 00:20:05.109 him storyboard complex scenes almost instantly. 00:20:05.450 --> 00:20:08.250 And this efficiency is underpinned by a very 00:20:08.250 --> 00:20:11.230 specific methodology. The three -camera rule. 00:20:11.710 --> 00:20:13.890 The three -camera rule is his secret weapon. 00:20:14.240 --> 00:20:16.859 His standing method is to use a minimum of three 00:20:16.859 --> 00:20:19.779 cameras simultaneously, sometimes up to 11 for 00:20:19.779 --> 00:20:23.240 major stunts or chaotic action sequences. And 00:20:23.240 --> 00:20:25.420 the reasoning is purely logistical and aesthetic. 00:20:25.720 --> 00:20:28.200 He can cover multiple angles in one single setup. 00:20:28.339 --> 00:20:30.640 He can do a couple of takes, ask if everyone's 00:20:30.640 --> 00:20:33.079 happy, and then immediately move on. It dramatically 00:20:33.079 --> 00:20:35.559 speeds up production. Aesthetically, this multiple 00:20:35.559 --> 00:20:38.519 camera approach contributes directly to the chaotic, 00:20:38.660 --> 00:20:41.059 documentary -like realism you see in Black Hawk 00:20:41.059 --> 00:20:43.509 Down or Gladiator. the story of his professional 00:20:43.509 --> 00:20:46.650 career though runs parallel to a narrative shadowed 00:20:46.650 --> 00:20:49.049 by immense personal tragedy and a deep family 00:20:49.049 --> 00:20:51.769 commitment his commitment to his family and to 00:20:51.769 --> 00:20:54.309 memorializing them through his art is deeply 00:20:54.309 --> 00:20:57.549 poignant scott experienced the tragic loss of 00:20:57.549 --> 00:20:59.809 two brothers his elder brother frank died of 00:20:59.809 --> 00:21:02.289 skin cancer in 1980 right as scott was hitting 00:21:02.289 --> 00:21:05.009 his international stride and later his younger 00:21:05.009 --> 00:21:07.549 brother and business partner tony scott a defining 00:21:07.549 --> 00:21:10.119 director in his own right died by suicide in 00:21:10.119 --> 00:21:13.240 2012. And these losses are woven directly into 00:21:13.240 --> 00:21:16.180 the dedications in his films. He dedicated the 00:21:16.180 --> 00:21:18.140 director's cut of Blade Runner to his brother 00:21:18.140 --> 00:21:20.599 Frank. And he dedicated both The Counselor and 00:21:20.599 --> 00:21:22.920 Exodus, Gods and Kings, to his brother Tony. 00:21:23.180 --> 00:21:25.779 He also dedicated Black Hawk Down to his mother, 00:21:25.920 --> 00:21:29.079 Elizabeth. It reveals the deep personal shadow 00:21:29.079 --> 00:21:32.480 cast over a career of such massive public acclaim. 00:21:32.680 --> 00:21:35.299 Moving into the 2010s, despite having to find 00:21:35.299 --> 00:21:37.779 two of the biggest sci -fi franchises in history, 00:21:38.480 --> 00:21:41.059 Scott found himself returning to the DNA he helped 00:21:41.059 --> 00:21:44.200 create. He directed Prometheus in 2012, which 00:21:44.200 --> 00:21:46.779 he described as sharing strands of aliens' DNA. 00:21:47.099 --> 00:21:49.680 He followed that with Alien Covenant in 2017. 00:21:50.119 --> 00:21:52.039 And he maintained a crucial influence on the 00:21:52.039 --> 00:21:54.299 Blade Runner saga, serving as an executive producer 00:21:54.299 --> 00:21:57.819 on the sequel, Blade Runner 2049. But the undisputed 00:21:57.819 --> 00:22:00.240 pinnacle of his late career success came in 2015 00:22:00.240 --> 00:22:02.759 with The Martian. A film that stood apart because 00:22:02.759 --> 00:22:05.779 of its optimistic, problem -solving tone. The 00:22:05.779 --> 00:22:08.289 Martian. with Matt Damon as the stranded astronaut, 00:22:08.529 --> 00:22:11.390 was an extraordinary phenomenon. It grossed over 00:22:11.390 --> 00:22:15.029 $630 million worldwide, making it his highest 00:22:15.029 --> 00:22:17.569 -grossing film to date. And consistently with 00:22:17.569 --> 00:22:19.869 his earlier work, it featured another highly 00:22:19.869 --> 00:22:22.809 prominent heroine, Jessica Chastain, as the mission 00:22:22.809 --> 00:22:25.970 commander. In 2017, Scott faced one of the most 00:22:25.970 --> 00:22:28.609 unprecedented logistical crises in Hollywood 00:22:28.609 --> 00:22:31.450 history, which speaks volumes about his decisiveness 00:22:31.450 --> 00:22:33.849 and technical confidence. The situation with 00:22:33.849 --> 00:22:35.960 all the money in the world. Right. Following 00:22:35.960 --> 00:22:38.319 severe sexual assault allegations against Kevin 00:22:38.319 --> 00:22:41.839 Spacey, who played J. Paul Getty Sr., Scott made 00:22:41.839 --> 00:22:45.299 the dramatic, almost impossible decision to completely 00:22:45.299 --> 00:22:48.440 replace him. With Christopher Plummer. And reshoot 00:22:48.440 --> 00:22:50.839 all of his scenes just weeks before the film 00:22:50.839 --> 00:22:52.880 was due to be delivered. His reasoning was very 00:22:52.880 --> 00:22:55.799 straightforward. We cannot let one person's action 00:22:55.799 --> 00:22:57.740 affect the good work of all these other people. 00:22:58.000 --> 00:23:00.579 What's astonishing is the sheer speed and technical 00:23:00.579 --> 00:23:03.230 mastery involved. He pulled the cast and crew 00:23:03.230 --> 00:23:05.670 together and executed complex reshoots in just 00:23:05.670 --> 00:23:07.750 over a month to meet the Christmas release date. 00:23:08.009 --> 00:23:10.529 The studio doubted him immensely. They told him, 00:23:10.549 --> 00:23:13.450 you'll never do it. God be with you. But he did 00:23:13.450 --> 00:23:15.930 it. He used his hyper -efficient multi -camera 00:23:15.930 --> 00:23:18.430 methodology, secured Christopher Plummer, who 00:23:18.430 --> 00:23:20.869 delivered an Oscar -nominated performance, and 00:23:20.869 --> 00:23:23.470 he hit the deadline. His recent output, particularly 00:23:23.470 --> 00:23:26.250 in the 2020s, has focused heavily on historical 00:23:26.250 --> 00:23:29.390 dramas. often with contrasting commercial results. 00:23:29.529 --> 00:23:32.529 The last duel in 2021, for instance, despite 00:23:32.529 --> 00:23:35.029 getting positive reviews, unfortunately bombed 00:23:35.029 --> 00:23:37.829 at the box office. Grossed only $30 million against 00:23:37.829 --> 00:23:40.910 a $100 million budget. It shows that even a visionary 00:23:40.910 --> 00:23:43.529 can't guarantee a hit with complex historical 00:23:43.529 --> 00:23:46.750 subjects. However, that same year he released 00:23:46.750 --> 00:23:48.750 House of Gucci, a project he'd been attached 00:23:48.750 --> 00:23:52.589 to since 2006. And most recently in 2023, we 00:23:52.589 --> 00:23:56.200 saw Napoleon with Joaquin Phoenix. which continued 00:23:56.200 --> 00:23:59.119 his commitment to powerful female figures with 00:23:59.119 --> 00:24:01.720 Vanessa Kirby's acclaimed portrayal of Empress 00:24:01.720 --> 00:24:04.099 Josephine. And it's crucial to remember his output 00:24:04.099 --> 00:24:06.660 isn't limited to the cinema. He maintains an 00:24:06.660 --> 00:24:08.619 immense presence in television through Scott 00:24:08.619 --> 00:24:11.119 Free, overseeing numerous successful series like 00:24:11.119 --> 00:24:14.019 Number Threes and The Good Wife. But his first 00:24:14.019 --> 00:24:17.059 TV directing role in 50 years didn't come until 00:24:17.059 --> 00:24:20.519 2020 with the sci -fi series Raised by Wolves. 00:24:20.700 --> 00:24:23.579 He initially confessed a deep reluctance to revisit 00:24:23.579 --> 00:24:26.380 those themes. He said his tendency was to think 00:24:26.380 --> 00:24:28.660 I don't want to go down that road of androids 00:24:28.660 --> 00:24:31.640 again. But he found the script compelling. The 00:24:31.640 --> 00:24:34.140 series naturally revolves around androids trying 00:24:34.140 --> 00:24:36.660 to rebuild and save humankind on a new planet. 00:24:36.900 --> 00:24:40.130 A perfect synthesis of his core themes. Looking 00:24:40.130 --> 00:24:42.990 ahead, Sir Ridley Scott shows absolutely no sign 00:24:42.990 --> 00:24:45.210 of slowing down at the age of 88. His schedule 00:24:45.210 --> 00:24:47.609 is packed. We already know about Gladiator II, 00:24:47.789 --> 00:24:50.650 which was released in 2024. But even before that 00:24:50.650 --> 00:24:53.369 film hit theaters, Scott confirmed he was already 00:24:53.369 --> 00:24:56.009 deep into planning Gladiator III. He offered 00:24:56.009 --> 00:24:58.730 a fascinating comparison of the new protagonist's 00:24:58.730 --> 00:25:01.630 journey to Michael Corleone in The Godfather. 00:25:02.109 --> 00:25:04.089 Noting that the ending of the second film would 00:25:04.089 --> 00:25:06.670 be about a man ending up with a job he didn't 00:25:06.670 --> 00:25:09.259 want. It's a compelling narrative thread for 00:25:09.259 --> 00:25:11.519 a director who has often explored the nature 00:25:11.519 --> 00:25:13.579 of power. And he has several other confirmed 00:25:13.579 --> 00:25:16.460 projects in the pipeline. The Bee Gees biopic, 00:25:16.619 --> 00:25:19.259 You Should Be Dancing, and The Dog Stars, based 00:25:19.259 --> 00:25:21.680 on the post -apocalyptic novel. This is a director 00:25:21.680 --> 00:25:24.599 in his late 80s who is still out planning and 00:25:24.599 --> 00:25:26.880 outworking virtually everyone else in the industry. 00:25:27.519 --> 00:25:29.960 Hashtag outro intro. So what does this all mean? 00:25:30.700 --> 00:25:33.000 It means that Sir Ridley Scott has created this 00:25:33.000 --> 00:25:36.759 monumental legacy built on three pillars. visual 00:25:36.759 --> 00:25:39.500 density, relentless technical perfectionism, 00:25:39.559 --> 00:25:42.700 and a profound character -driven narrative scope. 00:25:42.920 --> 00:25:45.099 He proved he could pivot between genres seamlessly, 00:25:45.440 --> 00:25:48.240 from the intimate historical epic of The Duelists 00:25:48.240 --> 00:25:50.799 to the grand science fiction of Alien and Blade 00:25:50.799 --> 00:25:53.220 Runner. He has three Oscar nominations for directing. 00:25:53.839 --> 00:25:55.700 a back to fellowship for lifetime achievement, 00:25:55.900 --> 00:25:58.319 and he has fundamentally reshaped our expectations 00:25:58.319 --> 00:26:01.460 for what large -scale, visually articulate cinema 00:26:01.460 --> 00:26:03.619 can be. And the sources affirm that his critical 00:26:03.619 --> 00:26:06.859 influence is vast. In 2007, he was inducted into 00:26:06.859 --> 00:26:09.480 the Science Fiction Hall of Fame. More profoundly, 00:26:09.640 --> 00:26:11.980 a leading German newspaper compared his influence 00:26:11.980 --> 00:26:14.940 on sci -fi to Hitchcock's influence on thrillers 00:26:14.940 --> 00:26:17.180 and John Ford's on westerns. That's a huge comparison. 00:26:17.619 --> 00:26:20.319 It places him securely in the pantheon of the 00:26:20.319 --> 00:26:22.880 definitive genre masters who invented the very 00:26:22.880 --> 00:26:26.240 visual language we now use. And despite his career 00:26:26.240 --> 00:26:29.099 being defined by high -tech science fiction and 00:26:29.099 --> 00:26:32.599 meticulous historical accuracy, Scott maintains 00:26:32.599 --> 00:26:35.680 this fascinatingly open perspective on the ultimate 00:26:35.680 --> 00:26:38.240 mysteries of existence. He's often described 00:26:38.240 --> 00:26:40.720 as an atheist, but when asked if he believes 00:26:40.720 --> 00:26:43.619 in God, he replied with this remarkable tension 00:26:43.619 --> 00:26:46.500 between science and faith. He raised questions 00:26:46.500 --> 00:26:48.779 about the Big Bang and evolution. He wondered 00:26:48.779 --> 00:26:51.140 if the successful, complex chain of biological 00:26:51.140 --> 00:26:53.900 accidents could logically be explained by coincidence. 00:26:54.319 --> 00:26:57.480 Unless, he posits, there was a controlling decider 00:26:57.480 --> 00:27:00.390 or mediator in all of that. And this simultaneous 00:27:00.390 --> 00:27:02.970 pursuit of hard visual science and the unknown 00:27:02.970 --> 00:27:05.470 organizing force, the question of the creator, 00:27:05.710 --> 00:27:08.569 whether human, alien, or divine, that's precisely 00:27:08.569 --> 00:27:11.470 what gives his cinematic worlds their incredible 00:27:11.470 --> 00:27:13.769 depth and lasting power. A perfect thought to 00:27:13.769 --> 00:27:15.829 leave you with. If you want to experience that 00:27:15.829 --> 00:27:18.190 depth and that organizing, unfiltered vision 00:27:18.190 --> 00:27:20.910 as he intended, we highly suggest you seek out 00:27:20.910 --> 00:27:23.190 one of his acclaimed director's cuts. Like the 00:27:23.190 --> 00:27:25.329 truly definitive version of Kingdom of Heaven, 00:27:25.450 --> 00:27:28.029 which fundamentally alters the movie, or the 00:27:28.029 --> 00:27:30.670 final cut of Blade Runner. That's where Scott's 00:27:30.670 --> 00:27:32.630 pure, uncompromising vision lives.