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

Spielberg Over the Hill?

[SteweyGriffin]

I can't help but feel, along with many others, that Spielberg's time to shine has come and gone.

It seems each movie gets a bit more out far-fetched and unbelievable with the years. He's even using the latest "fad" actors in his films rather than tried and true classic screensmen.

Anyone else think his time is over? I mean, A.I. was supposed to be a masterpiece, but all it was was simply two or three hours of some annoying "Sixth Sense" ghost boy trying to find his mom.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[garcia]

AI really wasn't *his* movie to begin w/. It definitly was a Kubrik film.

I am actually currently watching the Taken marathon. I don't think it is his greatest work but it is definitly good. Entertaining for sure.

I guess I will be able to draw better conclusions once it's over. Currently they are in the early 80's (1980).

I think you guys look for way too much.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Reality Master 101]

Great analysis. I also believe that A.I. is a vastly underrated and misunderstood movie.

So they did what the humans, in their arrogance, could not. They destroyed him.

This is not quite accurate. The humans did recognize that he was not capable of growing and/or learning, which is why they stated early on that these models, once imprinted, would have to be destroyed and couldn't be given to another owner. That's why the mother sent him off in the first place.

Other than that, I completely agree with you. That's the most interesting thing about the movie: it demonstrates that to be truly human requires all the negative traits, as well as the positive ones. They only built mecha with the positive traits, which meant they would never be fully human.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I've expanded these ideas a bit in a journal article, here. Give it a read, tell me what you think.

Slashdot really needs a feature for sending private messages.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It's arguable whether at the end of the uber-mechas destroyed him, or whether he simply committed suicide by going to "sleep".

I don't believe David could have committed suicide. He wasn't programmed to. The fact that he was limited by his programming is sort of central to the whole movie. If he had been able to "turn himself off," then why couldn't he also have been able to stop loving Monica? The fact that David could never, ever transcend, could never become "a real boy," is critical to the story. His killing himself would have been an act of transcendence, and I think it would have taken away from the internal integrity of the story.

That's why I stick to the uber-mecha euthanasia interpretation.

(Do check out my latest journal entry for more on this subject. Plug, plug.)

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

1. Why did they first suggest that his mother couldn't be recovered without DNA?

Remember that when they first found David under the ice, one of the mecha did something to him. He placed his hand over David's forehead. At this point the movie cuts to an oversaturated scene set in David's house, where he talks to the Blue Fairy. "And what, after all this time, have you come to ask me?" she asks. "Please make me a real boy, so my Mommy will love me and let me stay with her," he says. "David, I will do anything that is possible," says the Blue Fairy, "but I cannot make you a real boy."

David then asks where he is. "We read your mind, and it's all here," says the Blue Fairy. "There's nothing too small that you didn't store for us to remember. We so want you to be happy. You are so important to us, David. You are unique in all the world."

So there's a really critical point here. Earlier, the mecha said, "This machine [meaning the amphibicopter] was trapped under the wreckage before the freezing. Therefore, these robots are originals. They knew living people." The mecha value David for his memories. They have a very selfish reason to keep him around. Humans in the same situation would have kept David alive simply for his archaeological value. The mecha, however, make a different choice.

Then David asks, "Will Mommy be coming home soon?" The Blue Fairy replies, "David, she can never come home because 2,000 years have passed, and she is no longer living." That's when Teddy shows the hairs to the David. David holds the hairs out to the Blue Fairy and says, forcefully, "Now you can bring her back, can't you." The movie cuts to a shot of the mecha narrator, who pauses for the briefest of moments. In a resigned voice, he says, "Give him what he wants." It is in this moment that the narrator has accepted that David can never be happy as long as he exists. Programmed only to love, and only to love Monica, any continued existence for him would be filled with misery. The narrator then make the only truly selfless and compassionate choice of any character in the movie: to give David the illusion of a day with his mother, and then to end him.

Hair-- not hair follicles, but just hair-- has no DNA in it. It would not be possible to reconstruct a person in any physical sense from just cut hair. But the mecha had David's memories-- "There's nothing too small that you didn't store for us to remember"-- and could give him peace. If the illusion had lasted for more than a single day, David might have begun to doubt. So the mecha limited the time arbitrarily, and at the end of that one day, they euthanized David.

This may seem like Trekkie-style technical bickering, but why wouldn't the advanced mecha's just upgrade him

Because the fundamental conceit of the film is that David cannot transcend himself. Human beings can transcend: they can change, grow, evolve. But David, as a robot, could have no character arc. Bolting on an upgrade would have been as cheap an ending as turning David into a real boy would have been.

For some reason I found ET uplifiting and touching and AI remarkably sad.

AI was remarkably sad. A younger filmmaker, I think, couldn't have made that movie. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, AI is definitely from Spielberg's post-Schindler period.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[AliasMoze]

Your assessment is just plain false. First, Spielberg only fleshed out the story, and the overall structure is what most people had a problem with. This is the man, Spielberg, who has made two truly bad movies in his career -- 1941 and A.I. Sure, some weren't masterpieces, maybe overly sentimental, but Spielberg is the most consistent director, well, pretty much in the history of cinema. That's to say nothing of the fact that Kubrick tried and failed to make the story work for twenty years and asked Spielberg to direct (which he turned down). In other words, Stanely never got the story right, and Spielberg did it as a friend's dieing wish.

Now, A.I. is a failure. It's slow. It's "out there". It's hard to believe. The story is self-indulgent, and the ending is ambiguous. It sounds like...a Kubrik movie!

I, yes, work in the industry. It's true that Spielberg, like many producers, has his share of failures. But he is, matter of fact, extremely involved in his projects. He's the hardest working guy out there, a force of nature. But with all the failures, what's made Spielberg one of the most powerful when in the business, is his unequalled success rate. Look up his producing credits on IMDB. "Unequalled success" isn't just an figure of speech with him. It's a fact.

OK. I have no idea how good Taken is, because I've not had time to watch it, but I wanted to deflate these weird false assumptions people have about Spielberg. It's like, "Spielberg ruined what would otherwise have been a Kubrick masterpiece, like Eyes Wide Shut," or, "Taken is bad because of Spielberg, but he had nothing to do with it." What a load.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

As for the one day thing that still doesn't make sense if they planned to kill him as he slept the first night.

David could never sleep.

I honestly can't remember if the narrator indicated that David dies or not.

The metaphor is clear. The narrator says that Monica was fast asleep, more than asleep, for if he should shake her she would never rouse. Then he says that David went to sleep, too. Given the fact that David states without qualification that he can never go to sleep, the meaning is clear.

The message wasn't so cryptic, it was quite simple- the first AI with real emotions will undoubtedly suffer in a world of humans that don't accept their validity.

I don't think so. The theme is much bigger than that. The theme is laid out in the very first scene of the movie: "In the beginning, didn't God create Adam to love Him?" The theme is the tragedy of hubris.

I actually liked it

[Aztek]

I watched it every night and true the first episodes were by far better. My dad even started to watch it with me on about the 6th night. I especially like how each night for the first week was a different decade each night. When it comes out on DVD (which I assume it will just like Dune did) I might actually buy it.

It would be less disappointing with no aliens...

[User 956]

No, you're right. Taken isn't *bad*. But it's not really science fiction, either, which is why it's disappointing. It's a mainstream piece of entertainment that leverages the public's knowledge of the modern mythology of the space alien in order to tell the stories of a few families torn apart and brought together, sometimes all at once, by the tribulations of the 20th century. That's not a bad idea, per se. But sometimes while watching Taken you've got to wonder if it might not be better if they just took the aliens out of it altogether.

Reports of his "Death" are greatly exaggerated

[coloth]

I'm a little surprised about all this Spielberg-bashing.

Are people saying that an older, highly acclaimed director with a lot of clout and past success can't make good movies? Look at Robert Altman.

Spielberg is 56 years old. He could be making movies for another 30 years, and who knows what he'll choose to do?!

At the moment, from what I gather, he is trying to ensure the profitability and stability of the brand new major studio he created, the first in many, many years. He seems to be having some success, especially in animated features, against the company that invented the genre.

Hollywood is nothing if not a breeding ground for surprises. We all know Minority Report could have been better--it wasn't the masterwork that Bladerunner was--but you have to give him credit for putting his considerable resources into a less-than-forgiving proposition.

If what we're talking about boils down to the difference between Minority Report and Bladerunner, then I think it's something both very small and very large. A little bit of inspiration goes a long way, you might say. Maybe the theme of Constitutional erosion wasn't as inspirational to him as the Holocaust or D-Day had been, but I have no doubt that he'll be truly inspired again, whether it's next year or in ten years.

I agree, but to a point...

[ruiner13]

The first 5 were fantastic, I won't argue with that. The last five were mediocre, but I had other reasons to watch. The actor who played Lisa Clarke (Emily Bergl) used to ride my school bus with me. Kinda interesting seeing someone you used to sit next to in a miniseries. Good for her though, I think she did a great job, even though the episodes she starred in were a bit lacking in plot.

The Flaw - possible spoilers

[mwdib]

Yes, I feel a bit taken by Taken. IMO, the flaw with this particular tale was a lack of clear conclusion. It became fairly obvious by about hour 16, that the author really never decided for himself what the aliens were really doing. Instead, we got a bunch of vagueness about post-reptilian brains and the "next step in evolution." Yawn.

I'm sure I'm not the only long-term sci-fi fan who reacts to the premise "the next stage of human evolution" with ennui and disinterest.

The lack of a compelling motivation for the aliens -- and just saying "it's beyond our understanding" is nothing more than a cop-out -- is the fatal flaw in Taken.

I liked the characterization -- particularly the character of Mary, one of the best cold-hearted bitches to come down the track in a while -- the extended story line, many (but not all) of the special effects, and the overall concept. However, the lack of any real conclusion spoiled the mix. Yes, I'm sorry the mother had to let go of the little girl, but that's hardly an emotional conclusion that fit the overall piece -- sort of like framing Romeo and Juliet in terms of Nurse's little girl growing up.

Sigh.

Julian May.
Alfred Bester.
Poul Anderson.
People who knew how to end a story.

Re:The Flaw - possible spoilers

[mwdib]

Nope. It wasn't lost on me. I just didn't find it terribly compelling and/or interesting.

Okay, you're a behavioral biologist studying chimps and you notice that human females have lost estrus as a result of evolution, so you undertake a cross-species hybridization program to . . .

Yeah. Right.

Now, if they needed to breed superior warriors to fight an enemy race . . .

Re:My Impressions

[the_2nd_coming]

I agree with what you say, mostly......

the centepede thing was shaped that way becasue that is how the nurons were made in teh aliens, it was an artificial receiver....the reason it made them all insane had something to do with what the burning physocist said and became a running theme, "all your memories and all your fears"...presumably becasue that is what Jake clark, allie and the alien twins could do, we are to assume that the nature of the antena is what gives the psycic powers to the little implant thingy.

as for the brothers in alaska....it was very X-files-y. however, it served an importent point...remember the conversation that Jake had with Owen in the car "I am not the only one that is importent to them"....think about how old those boys were...Jake was talking about them....they are another experiment in crossbreading, but they are a failure....they look awful, and they can not contol their powers. it is also the episode that the "torch" is passed from Own to eric. eric shows his terchorus side that he inherits from his father by leting his brother die, and allowing his father to die as well......Owen saw his death when Jake looked at him....he saw Eric standing over him, he knew Eric would betray him, that is why the note says "I was wrong about you" he thought his son did not have the kind of competativeness that was needed to achive greatness.

"Taken" was actually really good

[Anenga]

I don't know what this FUD is all about. The people here reviewing it probably only saw one episode. You have to see the entire 20 hours, which I did, to get the entire experience. The reason most of the people here dislike it is probably because it had limited "action" and more drama/story.

I saw the promo for "Taken" on the USA Network (USA is affiliated/owns the SciFi Channel?) and I was a bit skeptical. Also, it seemed Spielberg was getting too much glory, as there were many many directors (one for each episode, I believe) who took part in the miniseries. So if you don't like this, it isn't entirly Spielberg's fault.

Anyways, I thought the miniseries was very good. Probably the best miniseries I've ever seen. And the best "Alien" story, in terms of accuracy and "it could of happened"-ness, as well.

The great thing about the miniseries was the theme of "Family" as it followed three families from the 1940's to today. They pulled it off quite well, as you could see traits of the characters which resembeled their parents/grandparents. And how they all intermeshed and met up again in the future.

The Government was portrayed quite badly, as offical governement workers often killed off innocent people to keep the secret. If the Government really did that, it is very dangerous. Here's a tip: If you ever find aliens/UFO's etc., call CNN or the Today show gang, not Uncle Sam. It reminds me of one of the few episodes of Stargate I've seen, where some guy says "It's almost worst to lie to your citizens than to commit murder".

The aliens were interesting as well. They did a good job of crafting them, but I believe they could of done better on the special effects. They certainly weren't up to par with the current movies in theatres, but around to where "Enterprise" is. The Alien ships were interesting, as it displayed what they could look like in the interior. The theory about them meshing together to create one big craft was interesting as well.

All in all, the people who did this miniseries did do their homework. As I reconized a lot of plot which was taken out of real life events. I also remember the crew mentioning that they intereviewed abductees and sifted through a large amount of documented events and theories before doing the show, which payed off IMO.

I would like to see a sequal, but I'd like Steven Spielberg also to do it. If it loses any of it's original imagineers, I think it would be very disapointing.

It was the "Human" story.

[Anonymous Coward]

All in all this wasn't an Alien movie. Most people (including myself) were expecting to see a few humans and a load of aliens. We wanted Special Effects that rivaled any movie to date. We wanted to see the aliens do things unimaginable to us. We wanted blaster rays and huge explosions. We wanted to see our team fight the odds and kick some alien buttox.

We didn't. What we got was a story of the human will, desire and endurance. We saw how the writers imagined how people of different times would react to the aliens. We saw things that we as a society believe to be our strengths. We didn't give up and we fought to the end. The aliens were not the point of these movies, just a means of getting the point accross about how strong we are and that there are some questions we ask ourselves that may never be answered.

What I liked was that story was so large and invloved so many people. What I didn't like was tha it somewhat uninspired and didn't really put any really new ideas out there. It was pretty cool to show how the government dealt with the situation. And Chet (MadHeadRoom's character) was great and I think he added the most to the series. He was pure geek.

All in all it was a solid mini-series. I just don't think it is getting the respect it should because we wanted Aliens meets the Matrix and we got more of a "Great Expectations".

- "Who would have thought I would end up being a humanitarian?" - Chet