[quote=“Angel”]
Also: please don’t compare Spielberg to G.I. Joe and McG and Brett Ratner and all that is wrong with Hollywood. He’s not on their level, that is for sure.
[/quote]
This is a man who was not only responsible for one Transformers, but was involved in the second to the same degree. He is on a totally different level of fucking modern day film. He is obviously talented (obviously more than the McGs and Ratners of the world), and has been responsible for making some of the best and smartest summer movies of all time. Ass hole should know better. Or at least support better scripts and filmmakers.
wow, a bitter bunch of movie fans in here. i for one accept the fact that cinema constantly progresses and evolves and had a blast with both the transformers movies and gi joe
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
wow, a bitter bunch of movie fans in here. i for one accept the fact that cinema constantly progresses and evolves and had a blast with both the transformers movies and gi joe
[/quote]
I can’t say I agree. I won’t be seeing Transformers 2 or G.I. Joe.
When it comes down to it the fact that we see safe generic bullshit in the top 5 movies in the box office draws every week is a political issue. Transformers and Gi Joe reinforce an agenda that really only ends with the public following the advertising again and going back to the cinema to watch more crap. There are great movies out there but you have to seek them out and go to your nearest arthouse theatre (I should pratice what im preaching more often I admit).
When I look at the impact that counterculture had on Hollywood from 67-80 it resulted in the best set of films in cinema history in my opinion. the director will never be given that amount of power again and subjects will continue to be unchallenging script by commitee efforts. I keep thinking of that old prick The Big Lebowski in The Big Lebowkski saying to the dude “Your revolution is over, the bums lost”. Thats how the studio heads feel about auteur cinema.
The reason we have “blockbuster” films is because Steven Spielberg made Jaws. An empty, fun, wooping shark chase with Robert Shaw talkin’ like a crazy man and Roy Scheider lookin’ like a grown up Shia LaBeef everytime the camera focuses on his face. This is a film that created the idea of a blockbuster. That paved the way for multiplexes and studios to grab massive amounts of cash.
Before Jaws, Deep Throat was the movie raking in the most cash of the 70s. That’s a goddamn porn film. That was back when smut was an art, of course but still, people went to see that instead of what they see today.
Jaws is why we have films like Transformers and G.I. Joe.
Spielberg’s early films were all about WOW factor so he could make money.
When he was young and made backyard movies, he charged family and friends to see them! All he wants is money. I’m fine with that, he makes entertainment products and not films and that is cool. But when he tries to branch out and make what he claims to be an “art” film he just applies the same theories of filmmaking to them as he does stuff like Indiana Jones. His film about the event that effectively ended the 20th Century, the Holocaust, was empty and Hollywooded out it’s ass. It did not offer insight, it did not challenge conformitive thinking and it did not allow audiences to think. Instead it was CRY here, SMILE here, be RELIEVED here. On top of that, it was compromising. They show a bunch of Jews but I don’t care about them. Ralph Fiennes character is a vicious parody of a Nazi commander straight out of a Donald Duck cartoon from the War. It’s JUVENILE.
Call me what you want:a film school artfag pretentious queertwat. But anti-intellectualism is the biggest and dumbest cop-out ever.
Spielberg actually did a cool thing for Bette Davis. The Oscar she got for “Dangerous” was on sale, and Spielberg bought it and gave it back to the Academy Award people. Now the Oscar is safe and is there for display. Odd life ain’t it? You get all the stuff in the world you want, but when you die, it goes back from where you got it from.
But he restored a Bette Davis Oscar from slipping into the hands of some random fan! Could you imagine all that fighting that Bette did to get to where she was. I think that was the Oscar she used in “The Star” as well. I was in a bitter mood yesterday. Spielberg is great. Spielberg is master. Spielberg is master. Spielberg is master. Spielberg is master. Spielberg is master.
[quote=“F.W.”]
The reason we have “blockbuster” films is because Steven Spielberg made Jaws. An empty, fun, wooping shark chase with Robert Shaw talkin’ like a crazy man and Roy Scheider lookin’ like a grown up Shia LaBeef everytime the camera focuses on his face. This is a film that created the idea of a blockbuster. That paved the way for multiplexes and studios to grab massive amounts of cash.
[/quote]
Jaws paved the way for nationwide release. Before Jaws, there was no such thing as the “blockbuster” release in the sense of a film released simultaneously in theatres around the country. Studios have been grabbing massive amounts of cash since the beginning of film. Time has washed away the commercial trash from those decades, but it was there. Just with a slower release schedule.
Spielberg may be a businessman and his reasons may be money, but I don’t think that belittles his films. He’s proved himself successful at making large amounts of money and it lies in his technique. He watched films and he learned. He learned from good films.
It always ends up on this forum that I’m defending someone like Spielberg. I don’t even own Jaws or ET or Close Encounters. And I’d honestly rather watch Antonioni or Ichikawa or Kusturica. But what I hate more than what Spielberg represents are most of the so-called “arthouse” films I see in modern theatres nowadays. At least Transformers doesn’t claim to be anything more than commercial shit. You forget that the term “arthouse” is another label and another market to sell to. And it’s as much prone to garbage as what comes out of Hollywood.
[quote=“Angel”]
Jaws paved the way for nationwide release. Before Jaws, there was no such thing as the “blockbuster” release in the sense of a film released simultaneously in theatres around the country. Studios have been grabbing massive amounts of cash since the beginning of film. Time has washed away the commercial trash from those decades, but it was there. Just with a slower release schedule.
Spielberg may be a businessman and his reasons may be money, but I don’t think that belittles his films. He’s proved himself successful at making large amounts of money and it lies in his technique. He watched films and he learned. He learned from good films.
It always ends up on this forum that I’m defending someone like Spielberg. I don’t even own Jaws or ET or Close Encounters. And I’d honestly rather watch Antonioni or Ichikawa or Kusturica. But what I hate more than what Spielberg represents are most of the so-called “arthouse” films I see in modern theatres nowadays. At least Transformers doesn’t claim to be anything more than commercial shit. You forget that the term “arthouse” is another label and another market to sell to. And it’s as much prone to garbage as what comes out of Hollywood.
[/quote]
someone has to sell arthouse cinema - if you don’t make any money you dont get to make any more movies.
I don’t care of people are making money as long as the quality of the movies is good and they have some depth to them.
In regard to speilberg specifically I will say I did feel rather uneasy watching Munich - palestinians are shown to be faceless arab terrorists. I kind of felt like I was watching a propaganda movie.
[quote=“F.W.”]
Which arthouse are you talking about?
Guy Maddin is considered modern arthouse.
Critics even called The Hurt Locker arthouse…
[/quote]
You want my honest opinion? The arthouse label is bullshit. Regretfully, I have to use it sometimes to point out things to people. But I hate it. Cause it’s such a self-important term.
Most people choose to define arthouse as films not in English. Because apparently foreign countries aren’t as prone to making commercial garbage.
Guy Maddin is a genius. I honestly think that. I honestly think Andy Warhol’s Vinyl is a masterpiece. I think L’Avventura is one of the greatest films ever made. I think Martin Arnold’s experimental work are some of the most complex and artful films I have ever seen.
But you know as well as I that there are people out there who “don’t own a television”, "read Ernest Hemingway and drink Lattes who will say the same thing as I, but on the inside they don’t really mean it. Because they don’t understand. They just don’t get it. But it’s not cool among the intellectual community to like anything remotely commercial.
They are the market. And put enough pretentious “art for the sake of art” in there and they will buy into it.
Without those blockbuster movies you wouldn’t have your precious arthouse stuff, because some of the money the blockbusters make, the studios will then put into smaller (sometimes prestige-) projects.
[quote=“Col. Crazy Kenneth”]
Without those blockbuster movies you wouldn’t have your precious arthouse stuff, because some of the money the blockbusters make, the studios will then put into smaller (sometimes prestige-) projects.
[/quote]
True. There are plenty of great directors who are let be like that because they spend very little and make their money back consistently.
My personal opinion is that closing your mind to any type of film is ignorant. I may think very little of G.I. Joe or Transformers, but studios are responsible for a number of films I have enjoyed.
Critics taut Shane Meadows and on a lesser scale the Quay brothers and they both anger and bore me. There are no absolutes.
