The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Fuck Steven Spielberg


#1

From the man who directed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:



<LINK_TEXT text=“http://sify.com/news/spielberg-doesn-t- … fcgad.html”>http://sify.com/news/spielberg-doesn-t-like-overuse-of-special-effects-news-international-khlcadfcgad.html</LINK_TEXT>


#2

George Lucas was very involved.


#3

He just directed Tin-Tin too, and that’s complete motion-capturing. Weird.


#4

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]directed Indiana Jones[/quote]

This is the reason why Spielberg should fuck off.


#5

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]From the man who directed Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull:



<LINK_TEXT text=“http://sify.com/news/spielberg-doesn-t- … fcgad.html”>http://sify.com/news/spielberg-doesn-t-like-overuse-of-special-effects-news-international-khlcadfcgad.html</LINK_TEXT>[/quote]

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X



:laugh:



And of course, he had to d-suck James Cameron there at the end.


#6

I wonder why Tin Tin isn’t on his imdb page. He did direct it, or co-direct it. Even though it isn’t out yet, it should still be there.


#7

I agree with Spielberg. Tell me a good story without fucking my eyes with day-glo colors and huge computer animated characters and I will pay TWICE to see it… Eye candy is just that, candy… Sugary sweet garbage that rots your teeth and give you diabetes if you eat too much. Or else you just puke… More day-glo vomit shot in slow motion.



If you have to bombard me with images in order to advance your story. You’re not telling a story. You’re giving me mindless Saturday Morning Cartoons. And not even the good ones.



Oh yeah, I like candy. Nothing bad about candy. I was just making a point.


#8

[quote=“roulette67”]I agree with Spielberg.[/quote]

Yes, as do all of us. But what we are not understanding is why Spielberg said this. It’s like being a basketball fan talking shit about other basketball fans. Case in point, he bashes it, but uses it and praised James Cameron for it. So it was like he was talking shit about the people who isn’t on his “level” and made sure to say “Oh I’m not talking about James Cameron”. Please. Dude is a hack.


#9

I get your point. basically, covering your ass once you make a statement like that, makes the statement lose it’s point. Why point out Cameron at all. If you wanna make a point, make it. Then let the chips fall where they may.


#10

[quote=“roulette67”]I get your point. basically, covering your ass once you make a statement like that, makes the statement lose it’s point. Why point out Cameron at all. If you wanna make a point, make it. Then let the chips fall where they may.[/quote]

Yes. He bashes it but then praised the biggest CGI movie ever. It’s stupid for him to say all of that. ;D


#11

Yeah, I agree with Spielberg too.



Special effects used to be a singular thing to behold. I’m sure many of us grew up waiting for the next Rick Baker, Stan Winston or ILM effects feature in the 80s and 90s. Filmmakers over-use special effects now to the point of blunting their magical impact. I have never seen Avatar but I think Spielberg has a valid point. If you look back through his filmography, his movies never used F/X in an arbitrary way. If I’m not mistaken, I’ve read that Tarantino is a Spielberg admirer. He’s cited Jaws, Temple of Doom and Saving Private Ryan as some of his favorite films. Can’t we blame some of these younger directors who throw effects at us at every turn and take away suspense and movie magic for everybody?


#12

He didn’t bash special effects. He bashed overusing them without good reason. Which he’s not really guilty of. That’s debatable at least. He has a point. It serves a good purpose, but when it’s not aiding your art, it’s likely to drown it.


#13

Ah yes, the old conservative “movies should primarily be about story” argument. What a load of bull. Film is primarily a visual medium. If you have a good story, that’s great. If you have a good story and tons of special effects that together make for a great experience, that’s great too.



I completely disagree that special effects should only be used if they help the story.



IN LOTR, how did the big fucking elephant monster that Legolas killed and quipped to the dwarf guy about it, advance the story? It didn’t. But it was hella fun.



Would some movies be better without or with less CGI? sho nuff. but don’t give me that story advancement crap, grandpa. Go write a book if you’re all about “telling a story”.


#14

I don’t think you should use computerized special effects if the visual can be done practically. I mean, I like Robert Rodriguez’s “guacamole gun” more than I like CG blood spatter. I like real car crashes better than CG car crashes. I like to see a real person doing a stunt rather than a computer image do a stunt. And I like real fire over fake fire. There are a lot of movies now that are using CGI instead of utilizing the methods that ultimately make the movie feel more realistic to me. It feels like a lot of them are just cutting corners.



But there are movies like Sin City, LOTR, and District 9, and all those motion capture flicks that would suck balls without every bit of CGI.


#15

[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
IN LOTR, how did the big fucking elephant monster that Legolas killed and quipped to the dwarf guy about it, advance the story? It didn’t. But it was hella fun.
[/quote]

Character moments and world building are part of the story too. It might not have altered the main plot in a huge obvious way but it was part of what turned two uneasy allies into friends.



Plus, conflict and conflict resolution are a pretty big part of telling a compelling story. The big fucking elephant monster created conflict. Legolas killing it was conflict resolution. It’s the same as those movies where the main character has to fight an extremely large man. LOTR just happens to take place in a world where giant elephants exist.



I think Spielberg is just saying what most of us think. It’s annoying as hell when film makers use CGI when a live on set solution is an option. If Peter Jackson could create a live action “giant elephant monster” that looked believable and was affordable, I’m sure he would have.


#16

[quote=“Dex”][quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
IN LOTR, how did the big fucking elephant monster that Legolas killed and quipped to the dwarf guy about it, advance the story? It didn’t. But it was hella fun.
[/quote]

Character moments and world building are part of the story too. It might not have altered the main plot in a huge obvious way but it was part of what turned two uneasy allies into friends.



Plus, conflict and conflict resolution are a pretty big part of telling a compelling story. The big fucking elephant monster created conflict. Legolas killing it was conflict resolution. It’s the same as those movies where the main character has to fight an extremely large man. LOTR just happens to take place in a world where giant elephants exist.[/quote]

all true. but the rest of my post still stands. using LOTR as an example was a bad choice anyway, since it heavily subscribes to the whole “hero’s journey” thing, that has been completely overused by Hollywood throughout the times.



I give you a better example: Transformers 2, like it or not, was one of my greatest cinema experiences of recent times, and it was not about telling a story, but mostly about kick ass visual/audio experience. And they used 10 tons of CGI for that. Michael Bay is not the enemy of cinema today. The real enemys are those who still try to convice us that movies should primarly be about story. Next thing they tell us videogames should be about story as well.


#17

[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
I give you a better example: Transformers 2, like it or not, was one of my greatest cinema experiences of recent times, and it was not about telling a story, but mostly about kick ass visual/audio experience. And they used 10 tons of CGI for that. Michael Bay is not the enemy of cinema today. The real enemys are those who still try to convice us that movies should primarly be about story. Next thing they tell us videogames should be about story as well.[/quote]

In the field of game studies, there is to this day ongoing debate between the ludologists and the narratologists. The ludologists believe that videogames should be studied and understood in a way separate to other temporal arts of narrative storytelling, based on the rules of a game and on gameplay. The narratologists believe that games should be considered a form of narrative and studied using the existing theories of narrative.



So, yeah, a lot of respected scholars do maintain that videogames are about story. They consider it a form of dramatic storytelling with the gamer interacting with the drama.



On the subject of film, I have never subscribed to the belief that there is such a thing as style over substance. I maintain that the visual aspect of film is unique in its temporal way and therefore important to the stand-alone identity of cinema. I do, however, believe that film is primarily a storytelling medium and style should serve some purpose, whether it be story or in the case of the avant-garde, thematic vision or something similar.



The truth is that people love stories, there will always be room for storytelling among humans. Films follow in the footsteps of the stage and of literature, expanding on a fine tradition of storytelling. Not even painting is about hollow extravagance. There’s a meaning or story behind good art that elevates it. At the end of the day, flashy robots and explosions aren’t going to hold up if there’s nothing behind it. The ability to resonate strongly with an audience is something that is relished in cinema and is something that will forever be out of the reach of Mr. Bay.


#18

[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”][quote=“Dex”][quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”] Michael Bay is not the enemy of cinema today.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

No, Michael Bay is the enemy of good taste.


#19

Saw Machete and as much as I enjoyed it, one thought kept popping into my head the entire time: CGI is useless. Filmmakers are getting so fucking lazy. I get Machete was supposed to be all grindhouse but for fucks sake: CGI bullet fights! How is that supposed to be thrilling in the least! Would John Woo’s gun fights be as drop dead fucking awesome if the churches, hospitals, and assorted living spaces were destroyed on a computer?!


#20

Amen!