Steven Spielberg

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.

Moderator: DarkImbecile

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Kirkinson
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Steven Spielberg

#126 Post by Kirkinson » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:37 pm

FrauBlucher wrote:It's strange. I don't think of him being 70.
Not surprising considering people were still referring to him as the "boy wonder" when he was approaching 40. And he's always seemed really young—I remember John Williams saying Spielberg looked like he was 15 years old when they first met (Spielberg would have been in his mid-20s then).

User avatar
ianthemovie
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#127 Post by ianthemovie » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:23 pm

I just got Close Encounters on Blu-ray and am looking forward to revisiting it for the first time in probably 12 years. The disc appears to contain no less than three versions of the film--original cut, "special edition," and director's cut--which differ from each other in running time by a mere 2-5 minutes (!?). What, if anything, is the difference between these cuts and which one is recommended? (A better question might be does it even matter?)

User avatar
Werewolf by Night
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Transylvania

Re: Steven Spielberg

#128 Post by Werewolf by Night » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:31 pm

This site has some very extensive comparisons.

User avatar
ianthemovie
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#129 Post by ianthemovie » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:40 pm

Thanks. I hadn't realized how different the three cuts are.

The 137-minute director's cut sounds the most appealing to me but I'd be interested to hear what others' preferences are.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Posts: 5931
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#130 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:41 pm

Is the extended version the one where they go inside the ship? I would strongly recommend against that one, it feels tacked on in the worst way.
Last edited by matrixschmatrix on Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ianthemovie
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:51 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#131 Post by ianthemovie » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:47 pm

Yes, I'm planning to avoid that version (what the Blu-ray calls the "extended cut"). As I understand it the director's cut omits that sequence, but includes extra footage of Richard Dreyfuss's breakdown as well as a new scene set in the Gobi desert.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Steven Spielberg

#132 Post by Roger Ryan » Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:06 am

The "Director's Cut" restores most of the footage cut from the initial release (footage I recalled fondly when seeing the film first-run and missed for thirty years) and retains the best of the additional footage and effect shots used in the 1980 reissue (minus the unnecessary trip inside the mothership) - it's the best version in my opinion.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#133 Post by Rayon Vert » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:15 am

Director's Cut is my favorite as well.

firstlast
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:41 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#134 Post by firstlast » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:50 am

What's up with the hot triplets in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4192
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Steven Spielberg

#135 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:02 am

firstlast wrote:What's up with the hot triplets in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?
Hah, forgot about the triplets! I would have to see it again, but I recall them resembling blonde-haired models, which came off weird, like someone dropped some escapees from a shampoo commercial into the wrong movie.

User avatar
colinr0380
Posts: 8441
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Steven Spielberg

#136 Post by colinr0380 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:12 pm

SpoilerShow
They're obviously there to distract the audience from the major sleight of hand: that the film flashes back into the perspective of the Tom Hanks character (literally through the move into matching shots of eyes) about to land on the beaches on D-Day, only to at the end of the film reveal that the flashback structure has involved Matt Damon's character (who never experienced the D-Day landings) who has been doing the reminiscing all along!
EDIT: For clarity!
Last edited by colinr0380 on Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

firstlast
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:41 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#137 Post by firstlast » Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:20 am

colinr0380 wrote:
SpoilerShow
They're obviously there to distract the audience from the major sleight of hand: that the film flashes back into the perspective of the Tom Hanks character (literally through the move into matching shots of eyes) about to land on the beaches on D-Day, only to at the end reveal that it has been Matt Damon's character (who never experienced the D-Day landings) who has been doing the reminiscing all along!
The film cuts from old Ryan's eyes to a shot of the beach obstacles, then a shot of the amphibious landers, then a shot of Hanks' shaking hands, then Hanks' face. Obviously cheap misdirection on Spielbergo's part. The stupid, now-dated "morph" fade from young Ryan to old Ryan's face takes place at the end, which may be what you're thinking of.

The triplets are just odd. Any straight adult male viewer will immediately distractingly sexualize the situation, which Spielbergo - chaste as he is - must have known, so if that wasn't his intent (and why would it be, in an entirely nonsexual film?) then it smacks of pointless stunt casting. The only thing I can think of is that Ryan is one of many siblings (no mention is made if they were quadruplets or different ages) so maybe it runs in the family (if such a thing is possible? more likely the culprit is fertility drugs, which I don't believe existed when Ryan's momma was crapping out four little Will Huntings.)

At any rate, terrible film. Too facile, too many gimmick scenes, etc.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4192
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Steven Spielberg

#138 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Sep 06, 2016 10:11 am

firstlast wrote:The triplets are just odd...The only thing I can think of is that Ryan is one of many siblings (no mention is made if they were quadruplets or different ages) so maybe it runs in the family.
This can be true - on a smaller scale, I've had several conversations with identical and fraternal twins about this, revolving around how fraternal twins (but not identical twins) are actually much more likely to have twins themselves when they have children. So in Spielberg's defense, if he wanted to show a man building a family over generations, it would make sense.

BUT, picking glamorous blonde triplets is a huge misfire, and undermines my defense since the Ryans were "regular" people and it's strange to see a significant portion of his family come straight out casting for a shampoo commercial. He wanted something like the epilogue to Schindler's List - Ryan's closing remarks make this too blatantly clear - but in that case you had REAL people that really were alive because of Schindler, and it was more powerful knowing that. Not surprisingly, they also looked like regular people, not like typical actors or models.

User avatar
marqueeposter
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 11:57 am
Location: South Carolina, USA marqueeposter.com

Re: Steven Spielberg

#139 Post by marqueeposter » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:42 am

firstlast wrote:What's up with the hot triplets in the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?
They got mentioned here: http://acidemic.blogspot.com/2013/01/ci ... sters.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Never cared for the bookends in SPR myself...

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Steven Spielberg

#140 Post by Brian C » Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:29 pm

I've seen the movie many times (though not recently) and I honestly do not recall noticing the triplets, and I'm as adult male as anyone else.

Strikes me as an extremely random (and in this case, literally pointless) thing to make a big deal about for a nearly twenty-year-old movie.

User avatar
movielocke
Posts: 2332
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Steven Spielberg

#141 Post by movielocke » Tue Sep 06, 2016 2:46 pm

It took me a long time to figure out what anyone was talking about with triplets. The bookends never bothered me, this sort of ellipsis in the flashback is a bit of a bait and switch, but no one would complain if it were a short story that was so bookended, the point of the film is that the old man is wondering if the life he lived has been worth the sacrifice of wwii, and the story told is of what those sacrifices were, and frankly, having spoken with wwii vets about the film, the bookends and the end of the film are incredibly important to them. Because it acknowledges the survivors guilt that they feel that isn't always fore grounded so clearly when films and documentaries are made about the "greatest generation" the whole, "my buddies died and I've had a good life...have I had a good life?" Struggle is one that is universal to many veterans. This idea is explored under the symbolic story of saving one soldier. So in looking at the individual case of saving private "john doe" (so to speak) the film communicates a larger idea about all the soldiers who survives and all the soldiers who didn't. Given that the film is blowing up the specific to talk about the general, it actually works, thematically, that the audiences expectations are upended in regards to the identity of tom hanks vs Matt Damon as the old man.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2886
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#143 Post by Ribs » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:17 pm

Close Encounters is actually being rereleased in multiplexes nationwide the first week of September.

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1074
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Steven Spielberg

#144 Post by Big Ben » Sun Jul 16, 2017 12:51 am

Another claim that it was Spielberg, not Tobe Hooper who directed Poltergeist. This time from the brother of the Director of Photography.

I don't know if this is earth shattering news to anyone but I believe that film history is important to all of us so I elected to share this.

User avatar
carmilla mircalla
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:47 pm

Re: Steven Spielberg

#145 Post by carmilla mircalla » Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:33 am

I've heard that story and I've always believed it

User avatar
Lost Highway
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Steven Spielberg

#146 Post by Lost Highway » Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:57 am

The only proof anybody has ever needed that Spielberg directed Poltergeist is the film itself. It looks like everything Spielberg was making at the time and like nothing Hooper has ever made. Even the claims that Hooper must have been responsible for the gory fantasy sequence never rang true to me. Spielberg would go there when he felt a scare was appropriate, from the severed head chump scare in Jaws to the melting Nazis and torn out hearts in the first two Indy movies. Poltergeist has always been up there with my top five Spielberg movies but every time I say so, someone lectures me that I'm being unfair to Hooper. I hope we can lay this to rest now.

The interview with DOP John Leonetti is delightfully indiscreet about Spielberg. It appeared on the Shockwaves podcast, which so far is the best podcast on horror movies I've come across. It's episode #56.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8675
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Steven Spielberg

#147 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Aug 04, 2017 6:49 am

Has the man himself ever shed any light on this?

User avatar
Lost Highway
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Steven Spielberg

#148 Post by Lost Highway » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:56 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Has the man himself ever shed any light on this?
Spielberg never commented out of consideration for Hooper. You don't give someone a directing credit to then brag that you did the job.

Emilio
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:38 am

Re: Steven Spielberg

#149 Post by Emilio » Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:48 pm

Beaver on the new CE3K BR:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRevie ... lu-ray.htm

This is not the 4K UHD. However if these caps reflect the UHD transfer...in any case, I admit I vastly prefer the image of the first BR edition.

What do you guys think?

User avatar
movielocke
Posts: 2332
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Steven Spielberg

#150 Post by movielocke » Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:16 pm

Lost Highway wrote:
flyonthewall2983 wrote:Has the man himself ever shed any light on this?
Spielberg never commented out of consideration for Hooper. You don't give someone a directing credit to then brag that you did the job.
I really don't think he did direct it, I think that as one of his first EP projects he really babied, he really got his fingerprints all over the thing while producing it, as it was still relatively early on the producing side of things, rather than have a light touch. That he was on set didn't help, and with all the cast and crew in awe of the wunderkind, even just on set consultation would quickly get conflated, not to mention, some probably thought they were flattering him and were trying to cozy up to his circle and get on his next project. I think he learned to have a more hands off approach when producing after this, because of all the accusations about him directing it. Goonies, or Young Sherlock Holmes have similar Spielberg fingerprints to Poltergeist, imo, but don't get the same accusations lobbied at them (particularly the Columbus) probably because of the lessons Spielberg learned from the Poltergeist gossip grind.

Having a director more famous than the director on set producing was not a good recipe for the film, I think.

Post Reply