Should Ridley Scott retire?

You probably heard the news that Ridley Scott wants to make another Alien film.

That was not the controversial bit. The backlash came when he argued that Alien: Romulus, the franchise’s most recent installment, was “just ok’. For context, Ridley made Prometheus and Alien: Covenant in 2012 and 2015, respectively, and people hated both films.

Meanwhile, critics and audiences alike believe that Alien: Romulus from 2024 is the best Alien film since James Cameron’s Aliens (1986). In fact, Romulus single-handedly revived what was essentially a dead franchise.

So, Ridley dismissing the film as “just ok” sounds like a bitter old man (88) who does not understand why audiences have repeatedly rejected his submissions to the very franchise he created, only to embrace Fede Alvarez’s work (48-year-old Fede directed Alien: Romulus).

Now, despite that introduction, I’m not here to add my two cents to that debate. I agree with Ridley. Romulus was just okay. If anything, I was disappointed. It felt like the *Star Wars: The Force Awakens of the Alien *franchise: it took the safe route by recreating the original film instead of breaking new ground.

But the problem here is the messenger, not the criticism. Why is Ridley Scott divisive? Because films such as Alien (1979), Blade Runner (1982), Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, and Black Hawk Down earned him a spot on every list of the Greatest Directors of All Time.

But then he made Prometheus (2012), *The Counselor *(2013), All the Money in the World (2017), *House of Gucci *(2021), and more. That inevitably raises a question. Should Ridley Scott retire?

Some people argue that films like Kingdom of Heaven (2005) have immortalized him. He has contributed so many irreplaceable gems to film history that nothing he does in the final stage of his career can taint his legacy.

Ridley’s past successes have earned him a blank cheque, allowing him to produce as many films of lacklustre quality as he wants. However, to others, if Ridley keeps going, his list of bad films will eventually outnumber the good ones – it already has.

No legacy is so unassailable that it cannot collapse under the weight of current failures. At the very least, everything he says and does only serves to sour their memory of him. Does anyone remember Francis Ford Coppola? He made what many people call the greatest films of all time (The Godfather *trilogy *and Apocalypse Now).

Guess what he made most recently? Megalopolis (2024). A film so bad it may have bankrupted him (Coppola self-funded the film). Now, when people mention his name, they think of both *The Godfather *and Megalopolis.

If he keeps making stinkers, what do you think will happen to his reputation? When should entertainers retire from the business? “Whenever they want,” is what some of you think. “If they can keep going, they should keep going.”

That mindset makes sense until you realize that Vince McMahon used his creative genius to transform WWE into a global juggernaut. He spent decades crafting electrifying stories for viewers of all ages, genders, and backgrounds to consume weekly.

Then he got old, and his creative spark faded. But McMahon would not accept that his time was over. WWE kept repeating the same matches every week, not because they had run out of stories, but because 70-year-old Vince McMahon kept forgetting he had already scripted and executed them the previous week.

Rather than assuming that entertainers like Ridley are smart enough to bow out once they have exhausted their creative juices, maybe someone should take the responsibility of telling them, if only to drag them off the stage while they still have their dignity.

mbjjnr8@gmail.com

The post Should Ridley Scott retire? appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.