Best Picture winner Gladiator, the majority of Scott’s work was characterized by epic scale and strong visuals. With Scott’s most recent film, Gladiator II, being yet another showcase of visual spectacle, he’s in a unique position to talk about how the use of special effects has changed in Hollywood throughout the years.

In an exclusive interview with ScreenRant for the 20th anniversary of Kingdom of Heaven, Scott got candid about the differences between his use of special effects and those using them as “a repair bill for a badly made movie.” Scott stated that when special effects are used to fix pre-existing problems, “your budget shoots up,” but when they are simply an “enhancement” to a well-shot film, “you are saving money.” With a background as a live TV director, Scott said he carried those early skills into his filmmaking career and pre-plans every camera movement. Read his full remarks below:

ScreenRant: I loved Gladiator II. Rewatching this, the structure, the scope, even the little attention to detail make this feel epic on a scale that I think is rare or barely even seen in Hollywood today. Do you think something like this is still possible to make?

Ridley Scott: I still get the opportunity, so I must be doing something right, but it is difficult.

And not only that, it is very much a lean in the direction of visual effects. The idea of visual effects is a marvelous tool. It's a tool. It should not be a repair bill for a badly made movie. And that's where your budget shoots [up]--when you haven't got it right in-camera.

Visual effects are an enhancement and should be where you are saving money rather than having to spend more money to repair a badly planned movie. And the problem is, the tendency of that is happening more often.

I learned very early on, I think, from days as a live TV director where I was using six cameras at BBC to do drama. Right there I pre-planned every camera move because you're live and you can't stop. I just carried that into movie. So, now I work [with] eight to 11 cameras.

The film I'm doing now called The Dog Stars, [and] I'll be finished in 38 days. Napoleon was 52 days. Gladiator II was 48 days. Normally that'd be a hundred days plus, but if you're working [with] eight to 11 cameras, it's eight to 11 cameras faster, providing you know where to put the goddamn machine. If you don't, don't try–you’ll get into deep s***. I couldn't shoot for 90 days. I’d go nuts with boredom.

What Ridley Scott’s Comments Mean In Relation To His Filmography

Ridley Scott Is One Of The Most Prolific Filmmakers In Hollywood

As one of the most prolific directors working today, Ridley Scott is not only responsible for some of the most visually impressive and large-scale action, historical epic, or sci-fi movies ever made, but he’s also managed to put out films with a consistency rarely seen in Hollywood. Scott’s comments highlight exactly why he’s been able to stay at the forefront of modern filmmaking for so long, as the way he’s embraced a fast-paced work ethic and paired it with an outstanding use of VFX has resulted in some of the best films of the past 50 years.

Scott’s unique method of carefully pre-planning every shot and using eight to 11 cameras to film multiple angles at once means he can work a lot faster than other filmmakers. Being able to shoot a movie as grand in scope as Gladiator II in just 48 days is a feat that most other filmmakers couldn’t even attempt, with comparable movies like Dune, The Batman, and No Time to Die all being shot over multiple months. Scott’s fast-paced filming style allows him to quickly move on to new projects while other directors spend years on a single film.

Our Take On Scott’s Comments

Faster Is Not Always Better

There’s no denying Ridley Scott’s status as one of the most successful directors of all time, but his filmography also features its fair share of missteps. As a filmmaker who's happy to wrap filming on his projects after just a few short weeks, even though he has pre-planned every camera movement, Scott’s most recent movies sometimes have a rushed quality about them. Scott stressed that VFX shouldn’t be used as a “repair bill,” yet Gladiator II actually received many of these same criticisms, with plenty of critics and audiences feeling it did not live up to the awe-inspiring impact of the original.

Scott’s work ethic is incredibly irable, and it’s fantastic that a filmmaker of his status is still hammering out movies on a near-yearly basis. At the same time, viewers are waiting multiple years or even decades for releases from the likes of Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, and James Cameron. However, projects as highly anticipated and grand in scope as Gladiator II could have benefited from more time to reach their potential. Faster does not always mean better, and Ridley Scott's relentless pace occasionally leaves his films feeling like they could have benefited from a longer production process.