Screenwriting : Ridley Scott Says Most Movies Today Are “S***.” Screenwriters—What Do You Think? by Sandra Isabel Correia

He has made great classics and is correct, IMHOP.

"But we also know the pressure to chase trends, algorithms, and spectacle."

I think the reported comments make him come across like a total douchebag. Anyone making broad negative generalisations of other people's art like this is best avoided. Not only is it an arrogant and unqualified statement, it's massively insulting to the millions of contributors to all those projects.

Sitting around rewatching his own stuff is pretty sad too.

While I do agree that getting it right on paper is important, it's obvious that the main reason digital effects are used so much is cost, time, and logistics.

Scott could be out there promoting the things he finds brilliant rather than leaning into his cynicism.

Well, Ridley Scott isn't my cup of tea--I fall solidly in the rom-com space--but I'm finding plenty of shows and movies to enjoy these days, and I appreciate that I have options. If something doesn't speak to me, I just go about my day.

That said, while story structure is important, I think there's a push for new screenwriters in particular to make sure they're hitting all the right beats at exactly the right time. There's a lot of "playing it safe," which, yes, reflects the market.

But there are also generations behind us that aren't into subtly/nuance/metaphor: they want their media 'on the nose.' Subtext goes right over their heads. That may affect storytelling in the future....

Maybe the guy isn't completely off-base, but it's probably an opinion he should've kept to himself. ;)

I don't know if most of the movies that came out recently and over the years are s***, Sandra Isabel Correia.

I do agree with "He lamented about how films nowadays are too often “saved” by digital effects because they haven’t had a 'great thing on paper first.'" Get it right in the script. It'll save time, money, and headaches. Things do change during production and post-production though.

I think what makes a script age-proof are a unique concept, strong characters, and theme.

Regardless of whether a film is good or bad, I take issue with artists and self-critics constantly offering criticism. Negativity only breeds more negativity.

Between what streams on Prime, Hulu and Netflix, I’ll let him be the one to say what’s sh*t in terms of the content they produce or distribute. Making anything these days is a huge challenge so entertaining or not, I pay respect to all hard working cast and crew who work to complete movies and get it streamed on a major streaming platform.

Quantity over quality is a huge issue. He is right about the weak scripts and how studios rely too much on digital effects to rescue the movie due to a script that wasn't fleshed out. studios that use practical effects more have better quality.

I think its really ironic that he's complaining about the quality of today's films when he hasn't made a decent one in years. I see a lot of good, and sometimes great, films these days's from all over the world. I don't know where he's looking. Also a couple of years ago he claimed that film making was just a job to him and not an art form so why do we need to listen to his opinions?

You are right, Jon Shallit; he did great classics and was very upfront for his time.

Totally fair, CJ Walley. His delivery was harsh, and I get how it came off as arrogant. I saw it more as a frustrated call to raise the bar, especially in storytelling. But yes, celebrating what’s brilliant today would’ve been a more generous move.

Thanks, Erin Leigh , love your take. You're right. Structure can become a straitjacket, especially for new writers trying to “hit the beats.” And yes, shifting audience tastes definitely shape how we write. Maybe Scott’s delivery was off, but the core question "how do we keep storytelling bold" still feels worth asking.

Thanks, Maurice Vaughan. Totally with you on that. “Get it right on paper” is the heart of it. And yes, things shift in production, but a strong foundation saves everyone. Love your take on what makes a script timeless: concept, character, and theme. That’s the holy trinity.

Thanks, Stephen Folker. Really thoughtful point. I agree; constant criticism can drain the creative spirit. But I also think honest reflection, when done with care, can spark growth. Maybe it’s less about negativity and more about how we frame the conversation.

Totally agree, Abram Christian. Getting anything made, let alone streamed, is a massive feat. I think Scott’s frustration was aimed more at the system than the crews, but yes, respect is due to everyone who shows up and gets it done.

Thanks, David K. Knight.Well said. Weak scripts padded with effects can’t carry emotional weight. Practical effects often reflect deeper planning and intention, which shows in the final product. Quality starts with the page, no shortcuts.

Thanks for sharing, David Melbourne. His comments definitely land differently knowing he’s called filmmaking “just a job.” I think the frustration he voiced is real, but yeah, there’s incredible work happening globally, and maybe he’s not tuned into that. Still, it’s a reminder to stay curious and keep elevating the art.

You're welcome, Sandra Isabel Correia. "a strong foundation saves everyone." Exactly!

Issues, technology, etc. change, but people from 2025 can relate to the theme in a movie from the 60s. People nowadays relate to some issues, technology, etc. from the 60s, 70s, and so on though.

It's a shame some believe threads are an opinion-free zone. Except for their own.

He's definitely right. My parents and I watch movies together most nights and so many of them on Netflix in particular are forgettable/too similar to each other. They were made just to be made. I'm pleasantly surprised when I watch a newer movie and it actually leaves a lasting impression.

It's not a matter of 'good' or 'bad,' but of patience and love for what we write. A rushed script rarely stands the test of time; writing is an art, and it cannot be hurried.

I'm not totally up on all of the projects from around the world or even just in the United States at indie levels, so I can't comment on overall quality, but there have been recent dynamics that have polarized much (kind of like the middle class disappearing).

The rise of streaming services, which must split revenue between projects instead of having it dedicated per project like theatrical releases, means much less money is spent on movies and TV shows. You can see the difference when Netflix spends only five million on what a theater movie would take fifty million or more to make. (Bring back actual lighting and ditch the steadicam!)

Secondly, it seems that nowadays studios tend toward sequels, remakes, existing IP, etc. because they're relative sure things, and this takes away resources from mid-budget films that people might actually love. I get that it's a risk to spend a hundred million to make and market something that might not get that money back, but I also firmly believe that taking those risks would greatly expand the quality and diversity of what's offered and renew faith in the industry all around.

Lastly, this industry is absoutely horrendous when it comes to giving writers access to agents, producers, and gatekeepers. It needs to do a much better job of letting writers get their work in front of eyeballs that can acquire it. As a script analyst, I see tons of good-to-great writers and scripts, yet contests seemed rigged against the masses in favor of specific critical darlings, and pitches are not for everyone. How about script readers who don't work for a single agent, studio, or producer but rather a consortium? Anyone can send in their script with logline (and signed NDA), get it read for free, and have the consortium send it out to an agent, studio, producer, or even star or director that the consortium knows would consider it? The industry wants better films, so it should have much better ways to find better material. I'm fairly certain that my own completed scripts are highly desirable, but getting it in front of those I want to read it is a Herculean task...and I am not the only one.

I agree with Ridley Scott, but this is an inevitable process. The whole problem is that the modern world has accelerated dramatically — everything has sped up, including the film industry. There’s no longer time to carefully write a script, to work through every line and every element of the plot. You have to write quickly, and then what’s unfinished in the script is simply “covered up” with special effects, because there’s no time to linger. And this is a natural process in the modern world, one you can’t really escape.

Do you see what the real problem is? Modern films aren’t “s.” They’re just different now. Think about it — Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Spielberg — they were young 40–50 years ago. Back then, cinema was different, and they learned to make that kind of film. Times have changed, and modern cinema isn’t bad. The audience has changed, and the films themselves have changed. So you can’t just call it “s.” Today, there are plenty of interesting, high-quality films being released. They’re just made differently, and the themes are explored in new ways.

I can share from my own experience. Right now, I’ve returned to a film — my script Fast as a Fly. It’s a sci-fi, sports drama. The theme of this film is that today’s youth want to become rich, successful, and famous quickly. This relates to social media and blogging.

In my film, almost all the scenes are short. I structure them like social media creators do — short videos. Any of the old-school directors might say the film is “s***” because there’s practically no extended scene with depth or a grand idea. But I do this on purpose for young audiences, so it’s engaging for them. It’s like they’re watching it on Instagram or somewhere else. These are modern trends, and audiences today perceive films in this way.

Yes, Ridley is spot on!

I don’t agree and the much bigger picture is not so much the films that have been produced, but the issue of “gatekeepers” trying to hold the industry to the way it has always been. I have never in all my life seen so many remakes, and recycled movies and television shows. It is Ludacris, especially when there are so many wonderful, new voices of screenwriters available with all of these fresh and compelling stories. Yet I see it as an opportunity for us as screenwriters, , producers, directors to shift the narrative and create the kinds of movies and TV show shows that we want to see in Entertainment. It is always annoying to me when someone is an entertainment and has made millions of dollars and had success and then they just turn around and rag on the whole industry. Like let someone else and enjoy their moment and keep your thoughts to yourself. If anyone thinks that the best movies and TV shows have already, and there are no more people in the world that have wonderful stories to bring to the table, then they are totally delusional. It is our moment and our time to bring those untold stories to the screen. Just because you don’t like someone’s work it doesn’t give you a pass to diminish what they have accomplished.

If Ridley Scott is right, and we are almost all screenwriters here, should I continue?

Many movies used to be made from what they called 'the top two percent' of screenplays. These days there's a lot of movies with pretty awful screenplays - many more being made without any - my guess is far more than before because the volume has gone through the roof. Don't know about you but spotting a movie made without a screenplay is usually very easy because it's pretty bad - the actors competing for center stage for example. Or they can have ten mins of good, and the rest is awful. I watch five hundred+ movies a year.

Hello! I don't think it's appropriate to categorize movies as good or bad. The purpose of cinema is to entertain the audience. This is the most important aspect. However, there are filmmakers who have different goals and objectives in the world of cinema. They seek to assert themselves through their films, to teach, to propagate, and to appear intelligent. These filmmakers often fall into the trap of their own misconceptions and psychological issues. When faced with a lack of interest in their work, they tend to devalue their audience and fellow filmmakers. Depreciation is a natural stage of personal and professional growth, which should be an incentive for further growth. People who talk about bad movies should do something else, because they are tired of entertaining the audience.

Aren't screenplays sometimes an adaptation from a book? "Aye, there's the rub" If I'm not mistaken, historically speaking SOME of the best movies have been adaptations from books or factual history? Hum, seems to be a pattern here....I can think of a dozen books/historical events that were award winning movies....So if you've got a bone-to-pick with the world and want to successfuly produce a movie about it, find a related much praised book and adapt that book into a movie ( isn't that what Opray Winfrey did with "The Color Purple' more or less???) Going off on a half bent tangent isn't going to garner the recognition you desire...

In the late 1990s the late Howard Minsky told me that his son, who was about to graduate from college at the time Minsky was preparing to produce Love Story, said to him, "What's the matter with you dad, I read the screenplay, it' a piece of shit." All those years later, Minsky was still hurt by his son's remarks. The film won all sorts of awards and did a box office that would be as much as a billion in today's dollars. I thought about it for a minute and said, "Your son wasn't so far off. The script was really soap opera. What made that film was the score and Art Hiller's clever direction. He milked that score." It got me thinking and I developed a habit of analysing very successful films which sometimes do have weak scripts. Ultimately great direction, clever casting, superb performances and the score are equally important as great scripts. It is seldom that all these elements in a film are equally contributing.

A bit of truth and bit of curmudgeonness. Hes still a GOAT

Hi Arthur Charpentier - You said, "People who talk about bad movies should do something else, because they are tired of entertaining the audience", but also said "there are filmmakers who have different goals and objectives - than entertainment - in the world of cinema". That bad movies exist is a simple statement of fact. Being able to recognize why they are bad helps you make other movies which are better - to literally better entertain the audience.

I'm not a fan of criticizing the work of others on an open platform Sandra Isabel Correia - there are movies that I love and movies that I don't. But while I can't presume to know his motives for saying this, I can't help to wonder WHY he said it. It begs the question of whether or not he is one of those gatekeepers who would never allow anyone else into the inner court out of fear.

Sorry, but Ridley Scott is already 87 years old. What kind of gatekeeper could he be? They say he has a bit of senile eccentricity, or rather, mostly a lack of understanding of modern trends. That’s all. He’s used to those films, and he only knows the movies that were made about 50 years ago. Older people have this trait — it’s hard for them to grasp something new because of their age. That’s why he talks like that.

The thought behind my statement was never meant to imply that he was an effective gatekeeper, Aleksandr Rozhnov. ;o)

It is interesting when you get to witness the cultural transition occurring real time. Value assessment aside, it is just an incredibly interesting time to witness how culture is evolving in real time. We actually get to witness as close to real time as possible the old passing the torch to the younger. Technology is at a point where it accelerates change at a factor humans have never witnessed. And we are all here for a front row seat as creatives!!!!

I think the great thing about creativity is that art is in the eye of the beholder.

My observation is that Tarantino made pain-comedy popular and other film makers over use pain ever since. Painful scenes are protected, too. Complain about pain and you're accused for being too weak to handle what's just a movie.

Absolutely, Maurice. That’s the magic of theme—it, transcends time. Whether it’s love, loss, identity, or justice, those core truths still resonate, no matter the decade. A strong foundation lets stories travel across generations.

Thanks Jay Gladwell, great quote from Ellison. You’re right, informed opinions carry weight, and Scott’s decades in the industry give him a unique lens. I think the key is how we use that lens: to critique, yes, but also to uplift and evolve the craft.

Beautifully said, Jazmin. That patience and love you mention, that’s the soul of screenwriting. A rushed draft might hit the market, but it won’t hit the heart. Timeless stories are sculpted, not stamped.

Richard Lynch, this is such a rich and layered response, thank you. You’ve nailed the systemic tension: shrinking budgets, risk-averse studios, and gatekeeping that keeps fresh voices out. Your consortium idea is brilliant. If we want better films, we need better access, better trust, and better pathways. I’m with you, there’s gold in the margins, and it’s time the industry started digging there.

Програма ChatGPT сказала:

You know, I completely agree with you. Strong stories and themes are capable of passing through generations, and they will continue to do so — themes like love, hate, loyalty, and so on. But if we take, for example, the movie Casablanca, it’s difficult for a modern 15-year-old to understand, and you have to explain that there were no mobile phones, no internet, and so on. So it’s not about the story itself, but how it’s presented.

Thanks Aleksandr, really thoughtful take. The pace of the industry has definitely shifted, and you’re right: speed often replaces depth. But I still believe there’s power in slowing down, even briefly, to craft something that lasts. Not every story needs to sprint. Some deserve the linger.

Preach, Mone’t. You’re absolutely right, this is our moment. The recycled content and gatekeeping are real, but so is the wave of fresh voices rising. Instead of tearing down, we should be building space for new stories to thrive. Let’s shift the narrative, together.

I don’t agree with Ridley Scott’s statement. There are many good films made now, aswell as the bad ones. Audience taste varies too. To verbally classify, all film makers globally as tard with the same brush in a very negative way, surprised me. Films are infinite in variety, many based on good scripts & not VFX or tech effects. Most film channels have Genre Categories, some free, others paid for. Indies too have their own major festivals. Are all filmmakers s…? BIG NO! Many have no Hollywood funds, yet are devoted to make memorable films. Saying goes, “You have the watches, I have the time.” Artists will never lose the art of storytelling but instead grow it, especially regards the modern trend of Transmedia. Regards thread question, what makes a timeless film? Concept must rock, characters be memorable & the plot tight, are key to me. Dramas requiring little or no plot, need concept & characters nailing well. The 1979 version of Alien, compared to Alien Romulus of 2024, is very different. Character tropes moved with the times, as did execution yet initial concept birthed a franchise.

Wow, David, 500+ films a year is impressive! You’ve got a sharp eye, and I agree: when the script’s missing or undercooked, it shows. That top two percent standard feels like a distant memory sometimes. Structure and intention matter, and when they’re absent, even great talent can’t save the screen.

Thanks Arthur, really thoughtful perspective. Cinema does serve many purposes: to entertain, yes, but also to provoke, reflect, and inspire. I think the challenge is staying humble while pursuing those deeper goals. Growth comes from listening, not dismissing, and the audience always deserves respect, no matter the filmmaker’s intent.

You know, for some reason, the legendary film Die Hard with Bruce Willis came to mind. The first one — a classic: the genre, terrorists take over Nakatomi City, and the brave cop kills them all, saves everyone. That was how it was back then. By the fourth Die Hard, there’s hacking, nanotechnology, everything computerized, and so on. Why? Because the times had changed — everything is online, everything is on computers. The fifth, a solid Die Hard, is set in Moscow — international politics come into play — but the core of each film is the same: terrorists seize something. What I’m getting at is that the themes remain the same; only their execution changes depending on the audience and how they perceive the world.

Absolutely, Diana. Adaptations have given us some of the most powerful films in history, when done with care, they bridge literature and cinema beautifully. But I also believe original screenplays can carry just as much weight when rooted in truth and crafted with intention. Whether adapted or original, it’s the emotional core that earns recognition.

Tibor Tibi Andris Halmai (Andy Halmay) , that’s such a compelling reflection. It’s true—some films soar not because of the script, but in spite of it. Direction, casting, score, even timing in culture can elevate a story beyond its pages. When all elements align, it’s magic. But when just one shines, it can still move millions.

My Leonardo Ramirez 2 really appreciate your honesty. I hear you on the discomfort with public criticism. It’s a fine line between critique and exclusion. If fear is driving the gatekeeping, then it’s time to open the gates wider. The industry thrives when new voices are welcomed, not silenced :))

Darrell Pennington , yes! It’s exhilarating to be part of this shift—not just watching it, but shaping it. The torch is being passed, but we’re also redesigning the fire. As creatives, we’re not just front row, we’re on stage, rewriting what legacy and innovation mean together.

Absolutely, Libby Wright . That’s the beauty of it—art doesn’t need permission to resonate. What moves one person might miss another, and that’s what keeps creativity alive and endlessly diverse.

Wal Friman that’s a sharp observation. Pain has become a kind of cinematic currency, sometimes used with intention, sometimes just for shock. But questioning its use isn’t weakness; it’s discernment. Storytelling should challenge, not desensitize.

You know, honestly, I believe that original screenplays are the true measure of a screenwriter’s skill. When a writer works on an adaptation, they’re not really creating—they’re just transforming a book into a format that can be filmed. In that sense, they’re showing their craftsmanship, but not necessarily their artistry.

It’s when a writer creates an original screenplay that their artistic vision and talent truly come into play, because they have to invent, imagine, and build everything from scratch. In an adaptation, there’s no need to invent—just to translate the story for the screen. That’s why I believe the real mastery of a screenwriter can only be seen in their original work.

Exactly, Aleksandr Rozhnov . The emotional core of a story can be timeless, but the context needs translation. If we want younger audiences to connect, we have to bridge the gap, not by changing the theme, but by reimagining how it’s delivered. Presentation is the key that unlocks relevance.

Debbie Croysdale , I love your fire and clarity. You’re absolutely right, storytelling is evolving, not vanishing. Transmedia, indie voices, and global perspectives are expanding the canvas, not shrinking it. Timeless films aren’t born from budget or tech, they’re built on concept, character, and emotional truth. The watches may tick, but the storytellers hold the time.

Exactly, Jay Gladwell . Trends chase the moment, timeless stories shape it. Wilder nailed it: by the time you catch what’s popular, it’s already fading. Better to lead with vision than follow with delay.

I would have to agree with Mr. Scott. I watch many new releases. And finish few of them.

@Jay You misunderstood me. I meant that TM was once dismissed as a trend, mainly by industry gate keepers, but instead proved a very successful story powerhouse. I’ve never followed fashion. Quote:- Houston Howard. “Never before have storytellers had such power at their fingertips.” No artist needs permission “anymore” from the “establishment” who insist on norms that keep their own work financially secure.

@Sandra Yes. Agree that trends catch the moment. However some Transmedia artists (starting years back obviously) jumped on the “new” band waggon at the time to produce masterpieces classed as timeless. Whether via, Hollywood studio, Tik Tok, Art House or even i phone, etc, the art will out. Only last year I went to a packed out cinema for a 192O black & white film.

Absolutely, Debbie Croysdale . That packed cinema for a 1920s black & white film says it all: timelessness isn’t about format; it’s about resonance :))

For me, add ALIEN: PROMETHEUS to that "sh*t" list.

Francisco Castro :))))

I agree with Ridley Scott.

it's mostly brainless rehashes of something that made $ for someone else.

Taking Scott's work as example.

Have you noticed that streaming services commonly have a category called Sci-Fi/Horror. Like they are same thing. How the F does someone think that sci-fi and horror are same or even similar.?

My guess is Alien was such a hit, that everyone jumped on the bandwagon and tries to rehash it now.

That was 50 years ago, folks! Half a dang century! that's same amount of time as from it to silent movies.

Great movie, but move on, for god's sake!

YES! There's so much poorly written stuff that is SOMEHOW making it onto streaming platforms. How on earth are studios going "yes, this is amazing' when it's just barely bumbling its way through dialogue.

I swear, everything is getting watered down.

And, hot take - as much as I loved Stranger Things (still do, can't wait for the finale), the stage play and even some of the episodes were just barely getting by.

I completely agree with Ridley Scott. What he says is true—today, many are more focused on trends and digital effects than on having a strong story on paper. The art of storytelling should always come first before anything else.

I think he is absolutely right. Many films today feel soulless, as if they are made just to pass and be forgotten rather than to leave a lasting imprint on the viewer’s mind. It’s as if the love for making cinema is slowly evaporating. Creativity is missing. And last but not least, the endless sequels, often made just for nostalgia’s sake. I actually love sequels, but only when they build upon the old stories instead of simply repeating them.

Amisrael Khai, I agree that it's time to stop rehashing and start reimagining. That is also part of the evolution.

Emilia Maria, I totally hear you. We need to bring back the craft, not just the concept.

Kudos to you, Nkunzimana Eric. I just love this: "The art of storytelling should always come first before anything else."

Daniel Danitto, beautifully said. Soulless films might fill the calendar, but they rarely fill the heart. Sequels can be powerful when they deepen the original’s emotional truth, not just echo its surface. Cinema thrives when it’s made with love, not just algorithms. Let’s bring the soul back.

My favourite film directed by Ridley Scott is Kingdom of Heaven. Historic epic was exceptionally soulful. Alien too, in other ways, Eg Man’s true & questionable position in the universe, conquest in space for earth’s fate, lone woman (1979) fights relentless monster. 1986 sequel becomes Mother figure to child with robot ally. The quality of his films is legend. However, good films by other artists, have been made for decades since. EG The annual Sundance Indie film winners. The many TV streamers showing both independent & box office hits. Oppenheimer, Everything Everywhere All at Once, & many Indies exploring affairs of the heart such as April. How can they all be classed as S…? There is no such thing as one master of all artistic vision.

Such memorable words! Who, "ageable" can forget those anyway!

Sandra Isabel Correia, the screenwriting journey then, has to implement new gears!

You are right Debbie Croysdale, and I agree with you :))

Eon C. Rambally :))

I believe the problem is that the heart of movies has been lost. It becomes a matter of making sure X,Y, and Z are done and all the little money-making boxes are checked off. I remember watching Batman vs. Superman. That was made purely as a money grab. Hey, I have a great idea. Lets have Batman fight Superman. It will make lots of money. But, what about the heart of the story? The heart of the story is how much money ends up in our pockets.<br><br>Does this film meet the criteria to earn money? Then, lets get it out there as fast as possible. Does this film have any heart and soul? Who cares?

I agree with you 100%, Wyman Brent. Many franchises have been more money-making boxes, no doubt. Indie, in my opinion, is more rooted in the story's heart, and I believe she will remain so. It will be a win-win situation for the industry because, after all, it is a business.

Sandra Isabel Correia, fortunately, I am not required to watch the garbage spewing out. I would much rather watch an indie film. I am a big fan of B movies, especially those from the 80s. I saw many of them when they first came out.

I won't be spending anymore money pitching my story HELL AT 30 BELOW, a compelling drama based on true events in my past. It's complicated and it's impossible for me to put it down on 2 pages, limited pitch. I enjoyed the over the phone pitching though, and they gave me some great feedback on my writing and the story, but passed. I mean, when I read they are looking for drama, and you find they are looking for something else, it's frustrating, to say the least. Sometimes the feedback sounds more like AI. The industry is putting out stupid comedies that aren't even funny, and most want stupid, cheep, bloody horror films that teach us nothing, and degrade the human body. No real substance, heart, or leaves a lasting, emotional impact, good or bad, on the viewers.

"HELL AT 30 BELOW" www.angelfire.com/film2/kinsman

Wyman & Karen - you are totally right and it's quite obvious. The question is what to do about it. It's a business. they don't spend millions on the the films for charity. The real ones to blame are the public who would rather consume easy-to chew endless and brainless slasher and rom-com flics.

It's like complaining that people eat more fast food.

I think much of what pushed that phenomenon lately are the stupid algorithms in the streaming services.

they are all based on the ridiculously over-simplified assumption that if you watched something then you just want to see more of the same. So they make and shove more of the same in your face, not offering many more choices. And then take that as proof that indeed that's what you want to watch.

it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think that the community here at Stage 32 is what would be termed a 'sampling error' if we were all asked to vote on how to change the entertainment industry. Artists generally do not approach the commercial aspects of the industry they are involved in with the same point of view as those in charge of creating commerce AND those who consume that content. This creates in the artistic community the idea that art is suffering and the gatekeepers are stacking obstacles in front of us unnecessarily. I'm not sure that is the case today. We are certainly either well into (without really understanding how far) or getting ready to jump feet first into a very disruptive period in all aspects of life. That being said, older people nearly always identify a current situation as deficient compared to their 'heyday' (tell me the last time you heard someone over 40 say 'The music today is so much better than it was when I was a teenager' hahahaha). There are lots of reasons for this, and in some cases, the disdain being articulated carries a lot of weight. We can and should learn as much as possible from the generations prior to us and determine how to integrate that wisdom into the new reality. Because I am traveling and not working a 'dayjob' the last year I have watched a lot more movies and series than ever before. The biggest challenge is wading through ALL OF THE MATERIAL we have access to. It makes it seem lopsidedly 'bad' compared to when there was much less to choose from. I've actually been really pleased with so much of what I have watched this past year that I question how insightful the idea that today is significantly worse than 'back in the good ol' days'.

Amisrael Khai, you are right. I have never been a big fan of fast food on screen or for eating. Though I admit I used to visit McDonalds often when I lived in Vilnius. At the time, it was the only place to get a real milkshake. Fortunately, that changed as Lithuania developed in the post-Soviet era. Speaking of which, I remember visiting the first McDonalds to open in Soviet Russia. We all had to stand in line outside in the snow waiting to get inside. The place had just recently opened. I only went because the person I was with wanted to go. Oh well, I stick primarily to real food and real films these days.

Wyman Brent, Bret, I love that. There’s something raw and fearless about 80s B movies, so much charm in their imperfections and boldness in their choices. Indie films carry that same spirit today: passion over polish, story over spectacle. You’re curating your own cinematic joy, and that’s powerful.

Karen Kinsman, my advice is for you to send a email to success@stage32.com and our team can help you to find the pitch match for you. Don’t give up, dreams come true:))

Amisrael Khai, you nailed it, it’s a feedback loop masquerading as personalization. The algorithms chase patterns, not curiosity, and in doing so they flatten the landscape. True discovery gets buried under repetition. It’s not that audiences lack taste, it’s that the system keeps feeding them the same flavor.

Darrell Pennington, this is such a thoughtful take. You’re right, Stage 32 is a beautifully skewed sample, full of artists who lead with passion over profit. And yes, disruption is here, whether we’re bracing for it or already riding the wave. Nostalgia can cloud perception, but it can also sharpen our understanding of what truly resonates. The sheer volume of content today makes it harder to spot the gems, but they’re absolutely there. Integrating past wisdom with present tools, that’s where the future of storytelling lives :))

Sandra Isabel Correia, I agree with you. I have never been the type to follow the herd. I go my own way with music and movies. It is the same with my songwriting. I have no clue what is meter and tempo and all that other stuff that are "required" for songwriters. I just write them anyway.

Right now I'm reading a currently hugely popular script writing book. I won't name it, but as expected, it could just as well been named" How to write more formula swill that will sell instead of something creative and original".

Thank you to everyone who participated in this chat. This is the essence of Stage 32, so I am grateful for all of your insights, opinions, and contributions. Thank you so much.

You're welcome, Sandra Isabel Correia.

I saw an amazing film a few weeks back at Japan Society in NYC called Small, Slow but Steady. Directed by Sho Miyake. It is based on an autobiography of Japan's first female hearing-impaired boxer to obtain a boxing license and win a professional fight. The story also takes place during Covid. The director was present for a Q&A after the film. It's a low budget film shot on 16mm.

https://japansociety.org/events/small-slow-but-steady/

I find many of the "Hollywood" films lacking quality story and acting.

Thankfully, we have some independent film centers in the NYC area, where we have the opportunity to see these incredible films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLYRErP4_Ws

Thank you David Horton for sharing.

I love everything Ridley Scott does for the most part. They are usually fun but that's all I'm expecting from them.

I think he's yelling at kids to get off his lawn. Great movies are coming out every year.

Overall I'm a HUGE Ridley Scott fan, his movies were a massive influence on me (Alien), however; the "trope" of the old filmmaker "hating" on the current industry is tired and boring. There are literally hundreds of good films and television shows coming out monthly if not weekly. No, they're not all classics, but there are a few. Some honorable mentions, Caught Stealing, Mickey 17, Sinners, NOSFERATU!!! (and Frankenstein on NOV 7, fingers crossed) . Not to throw shade a Mr. Scott, but maybe he should rewatch Covenant or House of Gucci, how about Gladiator II? Pobodies Nerfect. @BillMcCormick nailed it.

An easy way to look at what hundreds of new movies are about is use a pirate website NOT TO WATCH MOVIES BECAUSE THAT'S NAUGHTY - use it to read the logline/synopsis and then see the IMDB score. I also play a game of guessing the IMDB score from the title - sounds crazy right? It's not - it's amazing how good you can get at that. It takes a few minutes every day to look and leaves you in no doubt about what's going on.

I might say he paved the way for what we are seeing today. Look at some of his lack of story in some of his films that are contributing to this unoriginal story telling. in Prometheus and Alien prequels and the Counsellor to name a few. When he strays from originality that is where he is giving us a blue print for making bad films.

I love that Bill McCormick :)) You are right 100%

Thanks for sharing Stephanie Bourbon (Olivieri)

Dustin Quinteros, I’m with you. Respect for Ridley’s legacy doesn’t mean we can’t call out the “back in my day” narrative when it oversimplifies the present. There’s a ton of bold, inventive work being made right now—some of it messy, sure, but much of it deeply original. And yes, even legends have off days. “Pobodies Nerfect” might just be the most gracious mic drop of the thread :))

David Taylor, That's a great tip. Thank you. It’s wild how much you can glean from a logline and a score. The volume of releases makes it hard to keep up, but your game turns the chaos into insight. It’s like training your storytelling radar.

Ron Reid, that’s a bold take. Ridley Scott’s influence is undeniable, but you're right, when vision gets diluted by spectacle or ambiguity, it can unintentionally set a precedent for style over substance. Originality isn’t just about visuals; it’s about emotional and narrative clarity. The blueprint should inspire, not confuse.

Sandra Isabel Correia, I'm thankful for the discussion(s)! Ridley Scott is no ordinary name, therefore the world pays full attention to him. We are compelled to deep thought and contemplation as to why such reputations will make relevant statements and remarks. The psychological perspectives is also considered and its' obvious there is a challenge. We have to conclude with the relevant prominence , that's the objective(s) attended regardless of assertions .

I wish everyone the best!

The mystery and journey continues!

I'm curious Eon - you don't seem to address directly but are you suggesting that Ridley Scott is mentally compromised so we should take his statement with a grain of salt? Nothing wrong with that assertion but your language was more esoteric than direct so I am just curious what the distilled essence of your statement really is.

Darrell Pennington, understood clearly and mindful objectively! Age factor would have contributed to general scenarios and does not mean to discourage, as it is in his reputation and repertoire to inspire. I simply believe the subject "Screenwriting" should "continue" to be viewed in such capacity, as inspiration!

Every human being have their moments!

Eon C. Rambally, thank you for sharing. Ridley’s words spark reflection because of the weight his legacy carries. The journey is indeed mysterious, and the dialogue it inspires keeps us evolving.