Posted on 06/10/2011 6:27:00 AM PDT by Neoavatara
Well if you think that *any* treatment of this subject is automatically suspect and tawdry then what’s the point in discussing it.
It’s not that any treatment of the subject is, it’s that all the treatments are. It’s theoretically possible to make a holocaust movie which isn’t a preachy pile of collective guilt, but nobody will ever do it, because the only time anybody decides to make a holocaust movie it’s because they want to make a preachy pile of collective guilt. As for why to discuss it why not, or why discuss anything, take your pick.
Do you agree with the school of thought at the time which stated that Spielberg made the film solely to win awards and it was a cynical and offensive exercise?
I don’t know about only to win awards, the guy didn’t have a hard time getting awards before. But I do think he wanted to be something other than Mr Blockbuster, periodically in his career he drops in “important” movies: SL, Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, etc etc. I don’t know about cynical or offensive, I just think he wants something on his tombstone other than being the inventor of the summer blockbuster, he wants some movies that will write something to history.
Can’t really fault anybody for wanting to be “serious” as well as profitable. I just happen to think that most “important” things (movies, books, TV shows) blow. To me actually important things tend to happen on accident. Like the MASH movie just off the top of my head because I watched it recently, nobody thought that was going to be a big deal it, almost everybody involved thought it was either going to be their last hurah or a career misstep. Instead it spawned one of the most popular TV shows ever and is still a great movie (much better than the TV show it spawned) and a high point in almost all their careers. High quality stuff tends to come from a freedom to try things out, when somebody decides this project is “important” one of the first things that evaporates is freedom.
Spielberg did not win an Oscar before ‘Schindler’s List’. ‘Empire of the Sun’ is flawed but has held up as a pretty good film - a neat David Lean tribute (he was originally supposed to do it) with Christan Bale’s best performance to date.
Well he got the Irwin Thalberg “consistently good stuff” Oscar in ‘87, plus plenty of nominations before hand, plus a bunch of nominations from BAFTA and the guild and a couple of wins. By 1990 he’d had more nominations than 90% of directors will ever get and he was only 27, sure he hadn’t won “the big one” but he’d gotten enough recognition that I wouldn’t declare anything he did a cynical attempt to get the big one, which was your question. Most of his movies, important or not, hold up as pretty good films. I just get tired of them, especially the important ones.
Well I was just talking about Oscars. They gave him the Thalberg award out of emabrrasment for the ‘The Color Purple’ where the film was nominated for like 11 Oscars and won none.
He was what 29 when he started working on SL? I just don’t see that as old enough to be deciding to “force” the academy into an award.
Saw it this past weekend. Good movie...recommended.
He was in his mid 40s at the time of SL.
Evil military villains take center-stage in the movie.
You see, it's all the evil military's fault for holding the alien prisoner while they try to figure out the technology of the alien's ship. The alien is excused for going on a killing spree after escaping, because the military were mean to it first, by holding it prisoner, of OF COURSE it had an excuse to go on a rampage, killing and eating humans (the alien is not a vegetarian and humans are the handiest source of meat). (BTW, this is not a movie for little kids -- in one scene the alien is seen munching on a severed human leg)
The movie's producer (Steven Spielberg) might be making a comment about Gitmo.
Still not in panic age.
I’ve watched STR (ST Reboot) about a dozen times and I just ate it up, and I’ve been watching Trek for over 30 years going back to TOS reruns as a kid.
Canon it wasn’t, but it captured everything I liked about TOS and more. He took the personalities of the original characters and added excellent subtleties and background. The whole franchise had gotten so bogged down that they lost the essence, though I will give credit to trying to revive it with Nemesis and Enterprise. Abrams got it right though.
Most of the Trek fans I know, including my mother who got me into while I was still in diapers, say pretty much the same thing. Most had lost interest in the franchise which was choking itself off to please the canon crowd, and decided to give it one more shot and love the Abrams movie. It’s fun, it’s not drowning in thousands of hours of poorly maintained back story, it’s brightly lit.
It’s kind of sad that the canon people had raised it all the point of a scared cow only to find out there aren’t enough of them to maintain a franchise and then watch Paramount shoot the cow. But if they think that cow was Trek they’re just crazy. It’s saddest that they’d rather have seen the Abrams movie fail so there’d be no Trek than succeed and have non-canon Trek once again on the loose.
I absolutely LOVED JJ Abrams Star Trek and I am a long time Star Trek fan. It was spot on and great.
As for Super 8, just saw it and it was terrific, moving fun and excitement.
So I take it you have no problems with a complete trashing of the franchise from top to bottom ? I do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.