If it wasnt for Steven the Movies would have folded up and left in the 70s!
( in my opinion)
If you look at the numbers and films Like: " Raiders of the Lost ark," "ET
"and the others..
entire cineplexs owe Spielberg for selling seats.. and plenty ofspin offs
and product placements!
My son and I remarked.. he is a showman and has lots of visual and audio
tricks to build suspence
and its in and like a childs eyes and ears.. his use of timing and
unpredictable stunts has given him
a style.. like the T rex in Jurassic and raptors,, and his use of duffused
Light has become a trademark Look. yet in Color Purple the story telling is
dreamy and hits the Human core.. evenwith a damn
Puppet ET who didnt get a Lump when the little elliot was losing his
friend???? i sure did and when someone can take a puppet and make me feel
for it ( a very ugly puppet I might add)
so... If you invested in a Filmmaker To get gross reciepts .. Steven wins
hands down as far as
demos in my Opinion. Lucas alsohas a money machine as well as the other
Hit makers
Tom
Kirby McDaniel wrote:
> So, Dave, we largely agree. I'm kinda a three star guy on this movie -
> but, whatever. But I ain't anti-Spielberg. I've plunked down my money
> to see lots of
> Spielberg movies in first-run:
>
> CLOSE ENCOUNTERS (70MM)
> 1941
> RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
> E.T.
> INDIANA JONESES
> COLOR PURPLE
> EMPIRE OF THE SUN
> JURASSIC PARK
> SCHINDLER'S LIST
> SAVING PRIVATE RYAN
> MINORITY REPORT
> CATCH ME IF YOU CAN
>
> I once had dinner at his mother's restaurant in L.A. -- and even tried
> to sell her a poster (she said no, thank you!).
>
> He's made a few great ones: E.T., RAIDERS, SCHINDLER'S LIST, COLOR
> PURPLE,
>
> and
>
> some stinkers: 1941, INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, HOOK, ALWAYS.
>
> I do disagree with you in one respect. I don't think that Spielberg
> won't be considered legendary. I don't know what constitutes a legend
> -- or rather, I don't know what you have to do to get in that club. If
> living up to Hitch is all it takes,
> I'm underwhelmed becuase I'm not that great a Hitchcock fan, although I
> like some of his films. Let's say you have to live up to Griffith,
> Lubitsch, Ford, Stevens, Lean,
> and Carol Reed, Truffaut, Fellini and others. I think Spielberg can
> waltz with some of these guys. Being a legend largely means putting
> your stamp indelibly on an era. He's done that.
>
> He is who he is. I don't think you can ever call him a phony. If he
> made a biopic of the Marquis De Sade, it would have a rose-colored
> ending, Mom and Apple Pie.
> 'Cause that is who he is.
>
> He's bankable - in fact, he IS the bank!
>
> K.
>
> On Jul 2, 2005, at 3:46 AM, David Kusumoto wrote:
>
> > Hi gang; and thanks to Dave Ressler and Shelly and Phil for their
> > public
> > comments about my posts. I don't know what it is. I know I don't
> > matter,
> > but on the other hand, sometimes I get private mail that hints some
> > people
> > are still reading my stuff but don't necessarily want it known they
> > agree or
> > disagree w/me in public. I'm fine with it, really. I don't bite. My
> > ego
> > always needs a boost (I'm not insecure about my writing skills, but I'm
> > still insecure about a lot of things, like whether my opinions are
> > full of
> > s***, because sometimes they are.) I know I DO TRY to moderate my
> > bombast
> > with stuff that doesn't across-the-board offend. Not like I used to,
> > anyway.
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> > But I wanna be clear about the following about WOTW, before commenting
> > on
> > Kirby's review:
> >
> > 1) I hated the ending, that is, that portion dealing with who survives
> > and
> > who doesn't. It's typical sappy Spielberg. He gives us all this
> > menace,
> > pessmism and mayhem, and you think he's finally going to make a
> > straight
> > B-line to the end without coating it with sugar, but he almost blows it
> > completely with how he deals with the fate of his "family."
> >
> > 2) This leads to my issue w/Spielberg's problems. And though I'm a
> > big
> > fan, I still have enough detachment to talk about 'em. In my view,
> > Spielberg's greatest strengths AND weaknesses are the same. He's a
> > master
> > at connecting audiences on a visceral level -- yet he's so concerned
> > with
> > sending people out with optimism that he seems (even in Schindler's
> > List,
> > which was a masterpiece until the end) incapable of tying up things
> > w/something as simple as, "hey man, s*** happens, and all can't be
> > sweetness
> > and roses." This continues to bother me about him. When you see
> > WOTW, I
> > think Dave's right -- it has the mark of "masterpiece" for the sci-fi
> > genre
> > written all over it -- but in my view, he kicks the ball out of bounds
> > --
> > AGAIN. And it's only because of the ending.
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> > It's a shame that a great director like Spielberg is still defending
> > himself
> > after 30 years, that he won't be considered legendary in the same way
> > as
> > Alfred Hitchcock, because of this singular, admittedly acute flaw.
> > Yet his
> > skills as a technician and cinematic storyteller are too compelling to
> > dismiss. I've seen every Spielberg film for this reason. I've never
> > walked
> > out saying, "wow, this was 100% junk." I just nitpick.
> >
> > Now I read that for the first time since 1993, he's going to release
> > two
> > films in the same year, a box office pleaser (WOTW), and a serious
> > document
> > of history at Christmas, an untitled drama about the hunting down and
> > disposal of terrorists who murdered the entire Israeli Olympic team at
> > the
> > 1972 Munich games. He is, if nothing else, daring in this regard.
> > The last
> > time he went to such polar opposites in the SAME year with smashing
> > success
> > -- was indeed 1993, with Jurassic Park and Schindler's List released
> > within
> > months of each other.
> >
> > Spieberg, I believe, can be successful in every genre thrown at him --
> > EXCEPT -- musicals, comedies and historical dramas set before 1930.
> > The
> > idea of Spielberg taking on Jane Austen, for example, sounds ludicrous.
> > Scorcese can make a valiant effort, and fail nobly (Age of Innocence
> > and
> > Gangs of New York), but not Spielberg. When I first read Spielberg was
> > going to make WOTW as a pure horror film, with no punches pulled, I was
> > skeptical. I go in skeptical in spite of my high regard for him. I
> > come
> > out joyous for the most part, but then three minutes after leaving the
> > theater, I get a little p***ed because I'm reminded of things that
> > prevent
> > his films from being considered flawless by people who hate him. And
> > believe me, out here in California, especially in Los Angeles, there
> > are
> > people who HATE-HATE-HATE Steven Spielberg, what with his power and
> > influence -- what some feel are his corrupt intrusions on filmmakers
> > who are
> > producing "true art." People in the industry FEAR him, they hate that
> > he's
> > a box office success; they want him to fail and they tell stories of
> > being
> > black-balled because of an ill-timed word blurted out at parties.
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> > But think of this. Spielberg is the type who can sometimes draw
> > people,
> > even old people like me, out to the theater on sheer reputation alone.
> > What
> > is central to the box office success of American cinema among
> > Americans has
> > little to do with intelligence -- it's about demographics. People who
> > go to
> > movies regularly (at least three times a month) -- people who are
> > disproportionally responsible for the business success of films and
> > music --
> > are not people like me. They are people under 30. Historical dramas
> > based
> > on fact don't win over kids used to crashes, explosions and
> > sex-sex-sex.
> >
> > The fact that Kirby McDaniel, a man of refined taste, can bring
> > himself to
> > see a Spielberg film that is clearly not set within his genre of
> > choice, nor
> > his favorite director -- says volumes about Spielberg, the critics'
> > response
> > to most of his films (always an event) and whether they're compelling
> > enough
> > to pay good money and spend a few hours to scrutinize. Kirby's review
> > is
> > pretty much on the mark. Hence my segue into commenting about his
> > thoughts:
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> >> I saw WAR OF THE WORLDS tonight and it is neither the masterpiece
> >> that some
> >> devoutly wish it to be nor the dreck that some have claimed.
> >
> > Yup, I agree. It's an "A-" but it's not an "A+" because of the ending.
> >
> >> I would say that taking a child under the age of seven would be
> >> inappropriate at best. There is a kind of primitive dread that gets
> >> on your
> >> nerve, and I think that many children would find this film unpleasant.
> >
> > Absolutely correct. This is pure menace, pure evil on film. People
> > are
> > pulverized, corpses quietly float down a river, ferry boats flip over,
> > freeway overpasses are wrecked, planes crash, the monsters are clearly
> > not
> > pretty and they're certainly not trying to make peace with earthlings.
> >
> >> I found myself pulled in at times and just as quickly cast off.
> >
> > Which parts? For me, those parts were just the "set up" and the
> > "ending."
> > In the "set up," I'm thinking, "yeah, yeah, this isn't Eugene O'Neill,
> > so
> > just show me the aliens, get on with it." I don't care that Tom
> > Cruise's
> > character is divorced and a selfish Dad. I'm here for the aliens.
> > Like
> > Jurassic Park when I wanted to see the dinosaurs, for WOTW, I'm not
> > here to
> > hear sparkling David Mamet writing. This genre doesn't appeal to me
> > anyway,
> > so let's get this "set up" out of the way. And with respect to the
> > "ending"
> > of WOTW, I'm thinking, "why, Spielberg, why?"
> >
> >> People have criticized the acting, but I don't think that the acting
> >> is so
> >> bad, but the script lacks direction at times and it sorely tries our
> >> suspension of disbelief.
> >
> > I agree. But saying it's "not so bad" implies it's not good at all. I
> > don't think the acting is bad. It's superb for this genre. This is a
> > story
> > about surviving the unexplainable, not about dealing with common
> > dysfunctional families. As Dave Ressler alluded to yesterday, how much
> > pathos and human emotion can you put into a 2-hour script when the
> > primary
> > theme is predator vs. prey? People are fleeing constantly in this
> > film.
> > This isn't "Kramer vs. Kramer."
> >
> >> The ending is strictly DEUS EX MACHINA
> >
> > Quit using phrases like "deus ex machina," Kirby! (Grin.) Like the
> > phrase
> > "de rigueur" (which roughly means "to be in fashion"), using such
> > phrases it
> > exposes us as snobs. It's obvious we both read east coast pubs like
> > the New
> > Yorker. But my friends don't talk like this! Even at parties, you
> > won't
> > hear me using such words. Ugh. BTW, for my in-laws who might be
> > reading
> > this (they're mostly blue collar and they hate when I use stuck-up
> > words),
> > "deus ex machina" (you can google this) is when an "author uses an
> > improbable and clumsy plot device" to work a story out of a jam.
> >
> >> and Spielberg uses his neat ending to fill in the film with his
> >> characteristic feel-good goo. E.T. phone home!
> >
> > Yup, as previously discussed above. Even his darkest and grittiest
> > films
> > like "Schindler's" and "Private Ryan" are afflicted with this. I won't
> > throw him out the door, however, because 9/10ths of what Spielberg
> > puts on
> > the screen is still great.
> >
> >> I always hold up ALIEN and ALIENS as good examples of what polished
> >> and
> >> smart examples of this type of sci-fi fantasy films should be. This
> >> ain't
> >> that.
> >
> > Wow, ALIEN vs. ALIENS? "Polished and smart?" These are your
> > benchmarks for
> > sci-fi? Those are two VERY different films. Alien (1979) was pure
> > gory
> > menace executed by an accomplished artist (Ridley Scott, the guy who
> > brought
> > us Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator, all
> > CLASSICS of their type). ALIENS, however (1986), was pure action with
> > no
> > other redemptive value other than to offer fine entertainment. THAT
> > was
> > helmed by "Terminator" and "Titanic" director James Cameron. And
> > those two
> > gjys are on different planets.
> >
> >> But it is reasonably entertaining, and there is some considerable
> >> spectacle.
> >
> > "Reasonably entertaining." This is just like A.O. Scott of the New
> > York
> > Times. He used those exact words in his review, which BTW, was 7/8ths
> > favorable. Why do you use the qualifier "reasonable"? I don't
> > understand
> > "reasonably entertaining" unless it's another way of offering a
> > grudging nod
> > about a film from a director people have a tough time praising. This
> > seem
> > code for: "I found some parts boring." Well for me, WOTW was a lot of
> > things, but boring isn't on the list. It's entertaining with no
> > qualifiers.
> > I nitpick parts of it because I'm a critic. And anybody can be a
> > critic.
> > I can't direct or do a better job making a film. As Woody Allen said
> > in
> > Annie Hall, "those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, teach
> > gym."
> > It's funny, but it's an ultimately degrading remark to our underpaid
> > teachers. The point is it's easy for me to criticize, "as if I could
> > do
> > better." And I can't. But when people criticize my writing or a story
> > I've
> > written, I'm tempted to say, "well, OK, hot shot, where were you when I
> > started with a blank page?"
> >
> > -----------------
> >
> > With movies, what matters to me is the experience. Spielberg is
> > brilliant
> > at connecting with audiences. What irritates is he is genius who can
> > tackle
> > or reinvent almost any genre of film -- (he can even take a "light"
> > movie
> > like "Catch Me If You Can" or "The Terminal" and make 'em fun) -- but
> > what
> > brings him down is the stuff that's chased him for 30 years. It's not
> > his
> > sentimentalism. That's fine cuz you want to be emotionally invested
> > in the
> > actors in any film. It's sentimentalism at the close. You can feel
> > his
> > need to induce OVERT and unnecessary optimism, NO MATTER the
> > situation. We
> > would feel this anyway, as we did in Private Ryan, without showing it
> > on
> > camera or having it verbalized from lines in a script. I don't like
> > his
> > compulsion to state the obvious in film or to add "silver linings" to
> > his
> > endings. Again, I'm focusing on his endings.
> >
> >> Not wide screen either! That surprised me.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't know the deal with that. All big studio films released
> > before
> > 1953 were 35mm, not widescreen. Maybe he was trying to pay a
> > subconscious
> > "homage" to the original film. If so, only cinema geeks like ourselves
> > noticed.
> >
> >> Steven Spielberg isn't the best director around
> >
> > What? Of course he is. No I'm kidding. But I still say he's ONE OF
> > THE
> > BEST directors around, and NOT just because he's been the most
> > commercially
> > successful. His power allows him now to take risks with drama, and the
> > results, while not always successful, have ALWAYS been interesting.
> >
> >> but when he is "on", he makes very kinetic films, able to get at the
> >> visceral very quickly.
> >
> > Yes. To that, I say, "right on, Kirby."
> >
> > -koose!
> >
> > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
> > ___________________________________________________________________
> > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
> >
> > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
> >
> > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
> >
>
> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
> ___________________________________________________________________
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
>
> Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
>
> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
