Where is Speilberg going?

Fact: Kubrik, one of the greatest filmakers of all time has gone.<BR><BR>Fact: Speilberg took over AI, a film that Kubrik had wanted to produce. The film was too dark and turned away from by mainstream audiences in the US.<BR><BR>Fact: Tom Cruise was the last actor to work with Kubrik.<BR><BR>Fact: Speilberg picked up a Phillip K. Dick story and went with it, using Cruise in the lead.<BR><BR>Is Speilberg trying to reach the artistic heights of someone like Kubrik, is he "attempting" to make a movie more like Blade Runner, or a Kubrik film? <BR><BR>Although Minority Report was good, I think anyone would see that it could have been much better had he not had a such a 'please everyone' feel to it. Curious if anyone else had any fuel for my fire of loose association.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: skywalker1187 on 2002-11-06 15:41 ]</font>

There are movie stars (Ford) and there are actors (Hauer)...<BR><BR>There are movie makers (Spielberg) and there are directors (Scott, Kubrick)...<BR><BR>Am I making any sense?
[addsig]

I don't like Kubrik's films but that's just me. As for Spielberg he better run and hid because after i get through with him he will be sorry for the pathetic sideswitch he pulled on Minority Report. After an intense story then putting a "I love you, you love me, were a big happy family," type ending, Spielberg should be ashamed. It's like someone confiscated his balls <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif"><BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.newdoom.com/hosted/robodoom/rmac.jpg" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR>"What are you prepared to do?"-John T Cable<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ROBOCOP on 2002-11-06 23:54 ]</font>

<!-- BBCode Quote Start --><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE><BR>On 2002-11-06 17:04, Deckard BR26354 wrote:<BR><BR>There are movie makers (Spielberg) and there are directors (Scott, Kubrick)...<BR><BR>Am I making any sense?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR><BR>You do not make much sense, I am afraid.<BR><BR>Mind if I remind you that this movie maker made also things like "Sugerland Expres", "Purple Color", "Rise of Sun", "Schindler's List", "Amistad" or "Saving Private Ryan" ?<BR><BR>Looking back at his more than 30 years long career, he was trying to reach the artistic heights all the time. Now when he is older, perhaps even more. And why not, I am asking? Even if all last ten movies of his were total box office failures, he wouldn't die starving. He makes various kind of movies, because he just likes to make them. He's a overgrown child who likes to play on the sandy beach and that's the best on him. According to his own words, he could make Harry Potter movie, which was pretty commercially succesful flick, exactly fitting his "Peter Pan" image, but as he said, it wouldn't be any challenge and contribution to him these times.<BR><BR>The second thing - Scott being a "director".<BR>Yes, he made Alien, BR, Legend, Thelma and Louise, most of them during the 1980s. Yes, since 1992 (Conquest of Paradise) he has vomited only first-planned craps like G.I. Jane, White Squall, Gladiator or Hannibal.<BR><BR>Does this mean that Scott is a Mr. Artist, while Spielberg is but a pathetic money-wringing beast?<BR><BR>I just love simplifying.<BR><BR><BR>Now about the ending of MR. There are good endings and there are happy ends. What is basically wrong about the good endings? If Spielberg makes a good ending, it has a charm. Not every movie maker is able to make it like that. <BR>Plenty of people have this fixed idea that every cyberpunk movie has to be as dark and depressive as possible, and at the end everyone must either die or get insane. God forbid showing just a bit of demented optimism at the end! <BR><BR>Sorry to say that, but this purposeful cynical bashing starts to be little tiresome.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BR796164 on 2002-11-07 05:08 ]</font>

Very nice, just exactly the type of discussion I had hoped to follow my posting. I understand exactly with both who replied to my posting. However, I am reminded of one Forest Gump in looking at both the opinions. Movie makers and directers are as movie makers and directers do, i.e., Speilberg made "Schindler's List", proving himself to be a great director, but he also over sensationalized "Minority Report", taking away from the plot line in order to give us explosions that make us say "oooh", thus proving his ability to also be a Movie Maker.<BR><BR>Thanks for filling me in about his known desire to challenge himself. I really think he has the potential to make a great movie, but I still think he needs that Kubrik/Scott "I don't give a **** what the bubble gum chewing masses think about this movie kind of attitude". Will he get that killer edge, will he have a movie to compare with Blade Runner? I feel that was his goal, will he reach it nobody knows.

Well, we can also look at the problem the way that he doesn"t give a shit about what the masses think about his style of storytelling. <BR>He is just doing it his own way, as he always was. I don't think he is hypocritical enough to start making only pure dark and pesimistic movies in order to be considered for "great artist".<BR><BR>Are the optimism and the art in a total contradiction? No offense to anybody here, but only the weak of mind can think like this.<BR>Movie with a bad ending is not necessarily highest art and movie with good ending is not neccesarily a total crap.<BR>

You're right, with hindsight, what I said doesn't make that much sense - but hey, it looked cool to me when I wrote it <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR>Seriously though, you do seem to have read a lot of negativity into it. No offence, but perhaps that says more about your attitude to Spielberg than mine. <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR>I like Spielberg - I love a lot of the movies he's made - but, as far as serious Sci-Fi goes, I wish he'd leave it alone and go and make ET 2.<BR><BR>In <!-- BBCode Start --><B>all</B><!-- BBCode End --> the Sci-Fi movies he made, he just couldn't help himself - he HAS to 'sugar up' ending, he's not brave enough to leave an 'open' end. To me, he's saying 'I don't trust you to make your own mind up about the likely futures of characters X, Y and Z, therefore I'm going to spell it out to you - THEY ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER AND OH, BY-THE-WAY, <!-- BBCode Start --><I>GOOD</I><!-- BBCode End --> <!-- BBCode Start --><B>ALWAYS</B><!-- BBCode End --> TRIUMPHS OVER <!-- BBCode Start --><I>EVIL</I><!-- BBCode End -->, <!-- BBCode Start --><B>WITHOUT</B><!-- BBCode End --> EXCEPTION'.<BR><BR>Quite frankly, that sort of ending irritates me.<BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/filez/BR26354.gif" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR>Richard Gunn<BR>News and Content Manager for Bladezone<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><A HREF="mailto:richardg@bladezone.com">richardg@bladezone.com</A><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Deckard BR26354 on 2002-11-07 06:54 ]</font>

<IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif"><BR><BR>First I wanted to add few more arguments into the ring here, but then I have reconsidered it - I would say different variations of what I have already said.<BR><BR>Instead, I have this vision of both Spielberg and Kubrick (each one representing a radically different style of storytelling) sitting in front of the monitor, reading this topic and having together a good hearty laugh.<BR><BR><IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">

Scott, Speilburg and Kubrik, and I've liked <!-- BBCode Start --><I>most</I><!-- BBCode End --> of thier films, allthough I havn't actualy seen Minority Report yet. Anyway, The three directors have all have great films to thier names, and have al done Sci Fi films. Scott and Kubriks Sci Fi films are great (Alien, Blade Runner [like, duh], and 2001). However, Speilburgs venture into sci fi hasn't been that sucsesful. Now, ET was... well... a bit crap, really (even when I was 7), and AI was... differnt (I actualy quite liked AI, as its ending wasn't realy 'happy happy lets go home'), but, on the whole, they havn't been anything I'd call 'classics'. The moral of the story?<BR>Oh... I've forgotten.<BR><BR><BR>Ah yes, now I remember <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif">. <BR><BR>Steve, stick to Tom Hanks in WWII. <BR><BR>Ridders, I want more Sci Fi from you, please! Less of this roman nonsence!<BR><BR>Stan... RIP. <BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/1604758_Taffey.jpg" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR>"Louie. The man is dry."<BR><BR>Fly like a mouse, run like a cushion, be the small bookcase.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: tomtrek on 2002-11-07 14:24 ]</font>

You know what it is, it's like the eyeball scene but spielbergs chasing after his balls <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif"> lol, sorry i just had to post that joke <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">
[addsig]

Meh, pubertal humour...<BR><BR>Hey, folks, have some respect and spell the names correctly!

I thought 'ole Speilberg is a string puller.<BR>Meaning he knows how to manipulate his audiences. Mr.Kubick had his moments, I thought The Shinning was great! Sir Ridley still has some surprises up his sleeve (I hope). To me Senor SpeilBergo (simpsons hehe) tends to got for 60% screen effects, 15% high profile actors and then the rest is story line. It dosen't gell some times.<BR>I like Minority report, but the ethics of keeping three people in a big bath-tub for 3 years is down right over looked!

Only problem with Spielberg is his tends to have a lot of plot holes in his movies which are usually over-looked simply becuase the on-screen action looks and sounds so damn good!<BR><BR>e.g. Indy surviving the U-boat trip in <!-- BBCode Start --><B>Raiders</B><!-- BBCode End --> (meant to be explained as a deleted scene on the DVD), Short Round positioning the car so Indy and Willie fall into it without any bother after they fall from the window in <!-- BBCode Start --><B>Temple of Doom</B><!-- BBCode End -->, Andertons wife using the eye with no hassle in <!-- BBCode Start --><B>Minority Report</B><!-- BBCode End -->, not to mention the fact Anderton didn't go blind after the Spyders zapped his eye which should have remained beneath the bandages etc.<BR>But I still get great pleasure out of most of his movies.
[addsig]

I don't know what he's trying to do. But I do know Kubrik's Clockwork Orange is really good. I think Spielberg is trying to make a Sci-Fi legacy. maybe?
[addsig]

<!-- BBCode Quote Start --><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE><BR>On 2003-01-08 00:09, Neo121 wrote:<BR>I don't know what he's trying to do. But I do know Kubrik's Clockwork Orange is really good. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><!-- BBCode Quote End --><BR>sorry I just read down the list and never saw it mentioned...
[addsig]