Taken?

jeepliberty writes "Was I the only one to feel like I was "taken" by the latest Spielberg mini-series? It concluded last night on the SciFi channel. It started out great. The first five episodes were excellent. Then like milk on the counter, it started going sour. My sister is a writer and after she sees a movie she always picks it apart for continuity, character development and plot. I always tell here "Get a life. It's just a movie." Well after I saw the 7th installment, I started picking up my sister's habits and began picking it apart. "Taken" seems to have taken a little bit from "Firestarter", "E.T.", "Sphere" and quite a few others."

Comments

Whats wrong with steve?

[Monkelectric]

I saw an interview with this film school director, and he nailed on the head what's wrong with Speilberg. He said [paraphrasing], "When Steven Speilberg or George Lucas makes a movie, he wants to make a movie that will touch everybody. When Stanley Kubric makes a movie, he wants to make a movie that touches Stanley Kubric."

Which is what I think is wrong with speilberg and lucas ... They are candles who have burned too brightly for too long, and they are simply extinguishing. I'm not going to talk about "selling out" because that's cliché, but its clear they lost their passion long ago.

Sick of reviewers, critics, skeptics, guides, etc.

[SteweyGriffin]

Movies serve one purpose -- to entertain. In fact, all entities can generally be classified into one category based on one primary function that they perform. For example, computers are designed to perform fast calculations. Movies are made to entertain. Actors and actresses appear in movies to pay for living expenses, whereas they appear on Broadway and live theatre productions to hone their acting skills. Writers' purpose is to organize a lot of information into coherent articles and papers. Constructions workers build things. Engineers design things. It's really that simple.

It's often been said that there are only two things that should be used to rate a movie on its entertainment merits.

1) Does the story take you somewhere?
2) Do you care about the outcome?

That's it. That is essentially what Spielberg and every other movie creator's goal is. They want to entertain and captivate audiences, but if that's going to happen they have to address those two crucial questions.

It's not that Spielberg isn't a master, it's just that he's forgetting the whole purpose. His movies have become too cold and outsider feeling; audiences are subsequently being turned off to his stories these days because, time and time again, they don't feel taken back or captivated, and they don't have an emotional tie-in to what happens in the plotline.

I think popular films of the current day can learn a lot from the anime sub-genre of filmography. It's about interesting characters that people care about, and stories they grow to love and understand. The basic simplicities of life.

Anime is not child pornography, it's not tentacle rape, it's not insert_whatever_typical_complaint_here -- it's just captivating, wonderful film. And it's new, it's fresh, it's fascinating, it's an art form.

Spielberg no longer is these things. He's old hat, washed up, boring, dull, tantric, mundane, and irrelevant any more. He turns great Kubrick, Dickens, and Shakespeare stories into a cold abbreviated plot with characters no one cares about and actors that aren't the most skilled craftsmen in their field.

I used to love Steve, I really did. But lately it's almost as though he's just doing movies to occupy his time. I no longer leave Spielberg movies at the theatre with my mouth open and dripping. I leave with a gritty taste in my mouth and thoughts of less-than-his-best wander throughout my head.

I miss the old Spielberg, and I'm sure you do too. Perhaps a petition is appropriate. Let's just say "Steve, get back to basics. We love you and respect you, but you're abondoning your true fans and are losing out on wonderful films as a result."

Well, that's just my two cents. Like I said, I'm not a critic, and I'm not putting him down.

Spielberg Did Not Write This

[loggia]

Steven Spielberg did not write this. Leslie Bohem is the driving force behind the project - Steven Spielberg is the "brand," if you will.

I think it was a fine series. The writing was often subtle and thoughtful - a rarity on television these days.

Over the Hill? ... An Opinion

[carb]

I mean, when people look at Spielberg's "bad" movies, the first thing that comes up is A.I., which should be taken with a grain of salt seeing as this film was developed largely by Kubrick.

Aside from that, what really sparks you as bad? Minority Report? For all of its plot discontinuities (did I spell that right?), I think that the consensus is positive - it was an enjoyable sci-fi film with good performances all around, albeit with a few cheesy moments. Let's look at his films of the late-90's. Amistad - never saw it, but heard good things. Saving Private Ryan - do I really need to go into this, it was hands down my pick for Best Picture in 1997 (Grr ... Shakespeare in Love?) At this point I'll mention his involvement with Band of Brothers. A little bit earlier, Schindler's List, another classic.

TV is a new avenue for Spielberg - don't count him out yet. Over the past few years, I think his good work outweighs his bad work.