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?

[jcostom]

Yeah, AI was Kubriks, and the Kubrik parts were good

It was vintage Kubrik. It would have been a better film if it had ended 30 minutes earlier. He never could end a movie!

We meet an alien race that is smart enough to figure out how to resurrect the dead, but isn't quite smart enough to figure out how to do it for more than one day. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

Here's the ending I proposed: Next to last shot - aliens flying over the frozen Manhattan. Last shot - cyberboy frozen in the block of ice staring at the blue fairy. Credits. Much better ending.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

We meet an alien race that is smart enough to figure out how to resurrect the dead, but isn't quite smart enough to figure out how to do it for more than one day. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard.

It's ridiculous because you completely misunderstood it. They weren't aliens. They were highly sophisticated mecha. Humans became extinct in the 2,000 year interval, but mecha survived and evolved by reproducing themselves. The "aliens" you see are the end result of 2,000 years of mecha evolution.

And they didn't resurrect the dead. They initially told David that they would be unable to resurrect his mother because they lacked her DNA, but when Teddy presented the hairs, they had to improvise. "Give him what he wants," said the narrator. They created, out of David's memories, an image of his mother, and let him interact with her for one day. Why only one day? Because they wanted to give David a sense of peace before euthanizing him.

See, the key to understanding this movie is to know that the human characters were all selfish and cruel-- intentionally or otherwise-- and that the mecha characters were all innocent and pure. David, especially, had to be innocent; he was programmed to be. The uber-mecha were the culmination of this: they were supremely innocent, supremely kind, supremely compassionate. When they found this primitive mecha under the ice, they recognized him for what he was. They knew that he was capable of feeling, but not of learning or growing. So they did what the humans, in their arrogance, could not. They destroyed him.

Last shot - cyberboy frozen in the block of ice staring at the blue fairy. Credits. Much better ending.

Sorry, but I disagree. The existing ending is overwhelmingly powerful, if one understands it.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

its the stuff Spielberg added that made AI horrible

I don't know about that. Try reading this for my opinion on the whole matter.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[iomud]

It's obvious the "Aliens" at the end were mecha, look at the logo of the company that creates David. It's blatantly foreshadowed several times and at three different points in the movie that the company vision of the future was right in the logo. I have to dissagree with the ending though, the one more day with Mom thing just felt out of place. Weaksauce.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[haggar]

Excellent analysis. Actually, in an ideal world, this should be a normal interpretation, but seeing as how many empty heads have judged the movie, your writeup is outstanding.

Interesting how on Slashdot most people feel compelled to parrot what they perceive as the "common wisdom", without investing a second of their time in forming their own (supposedly intelligent) opinion.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[John Miles]

I made the same mistake ("aliens? WTF?!?") the first time I saw AI.

If there's a time on every project schedule to shoot the engineer, and a time on every movie schedule to shoot the director, there was DEFINITELY an overlooked time on AI at which the VFX lead should have been shot. Those future-mecha models made Jar Jar Binks look like something from a lost da Vinci sketch. My opinion of the film improved immeasurably when someone clued me in that the "aliens" were descendents of the mecha.

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?

[Reality Master 101]

Oh, something else I forgot to mention. It's arguable whether at the end of the uber-mechas destroyed him, or whether he simply committed suicide by going to "sleep". The latter might be more likely since he appeared to voluntarily close his eyes. Of course, the uber-mechas may have known that by fulfilling his quest, that would cause him to turn off.

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?

[Anenga]

Thanks for writing that.

I have been wearly of closed minded people not seeing the ending for what it is. The ending made you think, if it weren't there and if David was left in the water, then the ending and the feeling you have after watching it would of been very empty.

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]

Well, if nothing else, he clearly failed to get most of us to understand the ending ;-)

Oh, that's no crime. Hardly anybody understands 2001, right? Besides, a teacher of mine once said, "Great art is always subject to a variety of interpretations."

(I wrote more about this in my journal. Check it out, won't you?)

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

ok if they were mecha, why were they excavating the ice?

"This machine was trapped under the wreckage before the freezing. Therefore these robots are originals. They knew living people."

Same reason we excavate: to learn about the past. Records, even when they exist, can be incomplete. Mecha knowledge of the old cities was sketchy even in David's time-- remember Gigolo Joe's comment about "Man-hattan?"-- and would certainly not have been filled in any during the intervening years.

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?

[outsider007]

Interesting how on Slashdot most people feel compelled to parrot what they perceive as the "common wisdom", without investing a second of their time in forming their own (supposedly intelligent) opinion.
</complaint>

<meta-complaint>
also interesting is how people feel compelled to call someone a parrot for agreeing with the majority
</meta-complaint>

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[perljon]

Just because AI doesn't make sense, and you have to fill in the gaps, doesn't make it a soffisticated film.

It's kind of like in Psychology 101. In an expirement, an instructor asked a group of human lab rats to do some tedious task (like watch AI or something). One group of subjects was given $50 to do the task, and the other group recieved no money.

The group that was given money complained about the task and said it was tedious, and they didn't like doing it. The second group said the task was enjoyable and reported they like doing it. It's kind of like AI. You watch it, and it sucks bad, but then you add value to it (like the subjects added value to the tedious task) because people a) want to feel things they do are worthwhile b) there is no b.

AI sucked and it was way too long, and there were way too many plot twists that didn't make any sense, no matter how long you sit around and analyze it.

Second point. Because the plot of a movie is fairly simple to follow (and I know some people who didn't get Minority Report, so it's not that simple) and a story is entertaining to the masses and the film looks good doesn't make it crap. Actually, it makes it a classic. If you look at some American book classics, like the works of Mark Twain (Huck Finn, etc.) or to kill a mockinbird, they are also simple plotted, entertaining, and fun to read. However, they are still important to the development of the culture and literary classics.

Therefore, Minority Report is a great flick and worthy of 'Classic' consideration. AI sucked, and if you have to read a book to understand a movie, it's no good.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[geekoid]

OK, that makes 2 of us who understood the ending ;)

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[JebusIsLord]

Actually what I hated about this film was how Spielburg, in his pandering way, decided he needed to take a Kubrick ending and dumb it down with a voiceover narative explaining every damn thing happening on the screen. ARGH! I think it could have been so much better if he'd left the ending open to interpretation! I almost always feel my intelligence has been insulted at the end of a spielburg film (or in Jurrasic park, where it was insulted repeatedly throughout the whole movie.)

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?

[Hast]

I remember reading this point before, probably in the last article about Taken. And I have to say that it makes the ending a lot better. (I also took the Aliens route when I saw it.)

I think that the reason I (and many others) didn't catch it was that I absolutely hated the entire movie. I get really annoyed when script writers can't be bothered to keep their universe intact for 2 hours. In AI one of the first problems like this was that when David ate all the food dropped on his mainboard. (Which engineeer would be so incredibly stupid to design a mecha like that? If you are going to have a mouth than either put a bag on other end or a pipe which leads anything through the body.) And he short ciruited.

Later in the movie David falls into a swimming pool. Apparently he has his mouth closed because as if by magic no water comes in to short circuit him this time.

Besides that the movie was dripping with poor attempts of pathos. "Ooooh loooook, poor David, the humans are so mean to him. Don't you feel sad for him?" No, I personally felt like I wanted a big bat and 5 minutes alone with Spielberg and whoever was around him at the time of production.

Part of the problem is most likely that I'm a big Kubrick fan. I couldn't help but thinking, "What if Kubrick had made this?". When I got to the end of the movie I didn't try to solve the aliens-mecha puzzle. I wanted the movie to /end/. And since the movie hadn't given me any reason to think for over 2 hours (Infact, I had been punished for doing it previously, by getting annoyed.) I'm not going to start thinking in the last 15 minutes.

And don't get me started on Minority Report.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Plus, Dr. Hobby's goal was to create a mecha who could grow.

No, definitely not. He said he wanted to create an eternal image of a perfect child, never growing, never changing. Self-motivation, yes. Growth or transcendence? Definitely not a design feature.

That is why the uber-mechas were so interested in David.

No, the uber-mechas were interested in David simply because he was old. "This robot is an original," they said. "He knew living people."

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.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[perljon]

In [2] it's also pointed out that classics are classics because they are important to the development of the culture and literary classics. I have to say that I fail to see how MR will be helping the development of culture and future classics. Besides the obvious of "this movie sucks, don't do this".
I'm not arguing that Minority Report is a classic, but it shouldn't be eliminated from classic consideration just because it's aimed for the lowest common denominator. (ie, just because it has the characters /repeat the bloody thing 15 times over to make sure that even those in the audience with attention span measured in nanoseconds got it all/.)

Besides I don't agree with the assertion that if you have to read a book to understand a movie, it's no good. I'd call 2001 : A space odyssey a good movie. (Though the first part is too long.) And I don't think anyone quite grasped the 3rd part without reading the book.
The truth of it is that if it's not easy for most people to get it, it probably won't survive that long. I argue that Minority Report has a better chance of classic-dom than AI because it is easier to understand, and you don't have to fill in the gaps by creating some kind of analytic bull crap.

My own conclusion is that if you want good SF you have to look for it in other places than "the big screen". Books are good naturally, almost all new bad SF movies are mangled versions of good SF books. TV series seem to fare a bit better than movies, at least they are not so obviously bad as the movie counterparts. My personal recommendation would be to look for good SF in anime, there's quite a lot of good stuff there.
Matrix and the Original Star Wars Trilogy to name a few. I like those and it can be easily argued that these make up significant parts of modern culture. Matrix raises lays a solid foundation for Des Cartes Meditations which most people haven't heard of or don't have the grey matter to grasp. (What if we are in a Matrix? Can we prove that we're not?) Lots of people in Great Britan declare there religion as Jedi (or something similar).

Some movies are important in the development of modern culture. Sometimes they happen to come out of sci-fi. Neither AI or Minority Reports will be one of them; however, I don't think simplicity of plot or targetting a film to the lowest common denominator will deminish a Movie's cultural importance. The social, philosophical, attitudal, or political shifts caused by a film will determine it's place in history, and most certainly it has to be popular in order cause such a shift.

Braveheart made everyone want to be Scottish. Wag the dog resembled Clinton's politics. Free Willy made kids want to free all the dolphins. But AI just pissed people off cause they wasted their money watching it.

Re:Spielberg Over the Hill?

[perljon]

I think I see the gap. I'm 24. You must be about 35, cause most of the movies you mentioned were before my time.

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.

'Tis a natural fault.

[flogger]

Spieldburg didn't write this stuff. It isn;t going to have the cohesion that we viewers have come to expect in his finer movies. To take the "Short stories" and blend them together is a tough job. Look at what can happen (Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles) when one author tries to show a splintered vision along a unifying theme. Bradburys stuff is good,Don;t get me wrong; but taken on a whole, it doesn't rise above the individual stories. I think a lot of people were expecting Spielburg's stuff to transend the original writers' work because he looked at it and put his rubber-stamp-signature on the project.
Is "Taken" really great? Nah.
Is "Taken" worth watching? Sure.

Re:'Tis a natural fault.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

To take the "Short stories" and blend them together is a tough job.

That's not what happened here. The entire miniseries was written by Leslie Bohem. It consists of a very tightly plotted story that covers more than half a century. It might look disjoint at first, but viewed from a distance it's actually not at all.

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.

Ending song?

[BWJones]

O.K. folks, I heard a song by Emmylou Harris that I have never heard before on Thursdays episode of Taken. It also played on Fridays episode and I have never heard this song before. It was titled "Just before it gets dark". Can anyone tell me where to find this song and what album it is on? I must know.

Re:Ending song?

[neurostar]

Can anyone tell me where to find this song and what album it is on?

Yes, I would be happy to help.

You can find it on the internet. The album is titled KaZaA.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

Re:Whats wrong with steve?

[outsider007]

Personally I think it's better to make a movie that touches everybody, and I think it's a lot harder to do.

I'm not going to talk about "selling out"

you just did.

Re:Whats wrong with steve?

[Monkelectric]

Personally I think it's better to make a movie that touches everybody, and I think it's a lot harder to do. im really going to have to disagree there, I dont want to see my feelings on the screen, I want to see other peoples feelings which are also interesting :) Besides, I think the only kind of stuff that appeals to mass audiences is pop-psychology garbage from 2d characters.

Re:Whats wrong with steve?

[GTRacer]

When Stanley Kubric makes a movie, he wants to make a movie that touches Stanley Kubric.

So-o-o...Kubrick's making pornos now?

Seriously, I think I agree with your idea. Taken had a cool concept behind it, but the ending left me feeling empty. I don't know how I woulda done it, but I can't shake the "he's trying to please all of the people" feeling.

Does anyone know if the book is more informative or is it a straight screenplay-to-novelisation?

GTRacer
- I finally have a job again!

Re:Whats wrong with steve?

[outsider007]

Besides, I think the only kind of stuff that appeals to mass audiences is pop-psychology garbage from 2d characters.

Tell that to shakespeare. seriously.

Agree w/Author -- Taken Away and Dropped On Mars

[Jutral]

I too was "taken" in by the first five episodes of the series. It created an interesting and exciting storyline about events that might, or might not have, happened in our past. Adding the Spielberg touch, he was able to draw the audience into a spellbinding story that made us wonder what was to come next.

After the weekend though, it felt as if Spielberg decided to take a nap and let one of his assistants take over. The story became uninteresting with two supposed "lovers"--ages apart--running around teetering from being "bad guys" to "good guys" to just plain "weird guys."

While the first five were good--the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth were manageable--the seventh episode was the killer. In the seventh episode we watched the inside of a room and the outside of a building for an hour and a half as we learned as little as possible about the rest of the story. Watching the preview on the eight episode was more interesting than the two hours of the seventh.

While I am critical about the last few episodes I feel that overall it was worth twenty hours (two per evening) to watch this mini-series event. Not only was it interesting--to a point--seeing twenty hours of rather "quality" programming in two weeks is hard to do with the shows on television. If you have the time, check out the reruns this weekend on the Sci-Fi channel (at least the first five).

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.

Re:I Downloaded Taken

[nagora]

The compromise between sci-fi and mainstream always sucks.

Yep, the science is the first thing to go followed by any attempt at having characters act intelligent, followed by any expectation that the audience will.

TWW

The Blair Witch girl cried so much...

[tbmaddux]

... I was waiting for snot to come out of her nose again.

Re:The Blair Witch girl cried so much...

[Fishstick]

Yeah, but don't watch. Max Headroom does the nasty with her. He looks like a skeleton covered with flesh-colored saran-wrap giving her tongue.

I had to go watch 3 hours of good old-fashioned porn after that to get that image out of my head.

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.

Re:Over the Hill? ... An Opinion

[digitalhermit]

Hummm....Mmmhhhhh...
The problem I have with Speilberg films is that they always seem to leave me unsatisfied. They're these hollow constructs, full of sound and fury, gestures without motion, completely unable to hide the incredible blandness of the scripts . He stopped taking chances, stopped trying to enrage or challenge his audience, instead choosing to be safe and politically correct. Family oriented is one thing, to emasculate a story such as "SPR" is unforgivable. And I certainly don't think that a few curse words or eviscerations counts as challenging an audience. His world seems to have sharp good and bad delineations and as a result his characters are so one sided it would give Moebius a thrill. They never endure in my mind or my heart, I feel no empathy or sympathy for their plight. Whether this is a consequence or poor acting or poor directing, I'm not certain. But I know he's directed some fine actors and actresses.

Re:Over the Hill? ... An Opinion

[Cruciform]

You do a good job of describing *any* movie targeting the mass-media demographic. Summer blockbusters (or failures) aimed at the general population usually overexplain the obvious and use the wonderful hollywood foreshadowing method where whatever the hero does for fun in the first 2 minutes of the movie is used to defeat the bad guy.

Neither Amistad nor Schindler's List were intended to cater to the blockbuster crowd, and were exemplary pieces of work. For those who haven't seen Amistad I would highly recommend it. For such a serious subject it has some great situational humour that lightens the mood in a natural way, without detracting from the storyline at all.

Re:Over the Hill? ... An Opinion

[Wonko42]

A.I. was not largely developed by Kubrick. The idea for the film originated with discussions between Spielberg and Kubrick, but Kubrick died well before work was begun on the film. That film was Spielberg all the way.

As for other Spielberg movies that sucked, try Amistad, The Lost World, Hook, and pretty much all of his early career TV movies. Which raises another point: TV is not a new avenue for Spielberg. He got his start doing TV. Granted, the guy has more hits than misses on his resume, but that doesn't make him a saint.

Re:Over the Hill? ... An Opinion

[GMontag451]

Hey! Animaniacs was the best cartoon ever made! Everything except Slappy the Squirrel and the Goodfeathers was great. It sure as hell is a lot better than the crap they pass off as cartoons nowadays.

My personal experience with Spielberg films

[SteweyGriffin]

Let me guess, Steven, you picked out yet another (originally) interesting film with a "crank" that I'm expected to turn and turn until OOP! big shock, a jack pops out and you laugh and the audience laughs and the dog laughs and I die a little inside

?

B*O*Y*C*O*T*T

[MacAndrew]

Not that anyone including SciFi or /. cares, but I refuse to watch this show after they murdered you-know-what. Opting for the Spielberg name was doubtlessly hoped to be a free ride, though I doubt Spielberg comes cheap. I'm still skeptical of SciFi's editorial decisions. (These are the guys who broadcast double helpings of John Edward, after all.)

Not that I think I'm missing much. IMHO Spielberg's stuff has been pretty bad for a while. Here is a DVD'd list of his film work -- how many titles have you seen, and how many have you liked? There are a number of notable turkeys. I know many people love him, but when I hear "Hollywood" as a put-down for something thought glib and slick and insincere, I immediately think "Spielberg."

So that's two strikes against the show. And, as we all know, even if we miss a show and later regret it, the reruns will hound us for years if the thing was halfway good, or even if not. I laugh now to think how I once meticulously archived Star Trek: TNG episodes (I confess that was a major reason I bought the VCR). I had no idea how popular the show would be!

Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Here is a DVD'd list of his film work

Uh, rather than looking at an incomplete list on NetFlix (wtf?) why don't you look at the canonical source. On that list you've got films like Minority Report, AI, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, The Lost World, Schindler's List, and Jurassic Park. And that's just what he's done in the past ten years. Of his three biggest flops-- Hook, Always, 1941-- two of them made a small profit at the box office. And his best films-- Schindler's List, Empire of the Sun, The Color Purple-- are some of the greatest movies ever made.

Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T

[MacAndrew]

Actually -- I've evolved -- if anything I would buy the DS9 episodes. I like the series better, and with the relative popularity of TNG and VOY I've memorized them anyway.

I've seen TV episodes piling up on Netflix and will eventually try more. I rented one Farscape disk, which was cool without ads but also kind of unnerving because the shows still have these dramatic moments and fade-to-blacks obvious calculated for ad breaks ... and then the show just presses on!

Maybe TV shows really need ads, to be enjoyed as the creators intended. :)

P.S. I haven't seen Nemesis (Star Trek X) but am confident it will not lose money when all is said and done, as it's generic popcorn fare. For chrissakes, Waterworld earned money! (Cost: $175M; Gross:$255M!) 2/3 of the gross was foreign, where evidently they do not have access to American reviews, or dubbing somehow improves the film which seemed dubbed anyway. Once you factor in merchandising and broadcast fees and DVD/VHS sales they must come out OK, if money is one's only object (true for the studio). And in my HUMBLE opinion, Waterworld STANK! Nemesis (cost?) has already taken in about $8M.

BTW, LOL, FDIC, etc.

Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T

[MacAndrew]

The Netflix list selects out the most famous titles and was as much as I could handle. :) Also, I like to sanity-check my views against others. (If I'm insane, I at least need a heads-up.) Turth, I was in a hurry, and though that list did enough damage.

I haven't seen Schlindler's List and want to, though there you have a topic of such gravity your film will seem significant as well (I liked Life is Beautiful as a totally weird take on the Holocaust; Benigni just barely pulled it off). The Color Purple was (for me -- my wife loves it) slick and unconvincing; I could feel Spielberg reaching out from the screen to emotionally manipulate the audience. Jurassic Park was cute as a faux nature show, but otherwise had me bored and chanting for Goldblum to get eaten (now that would have been a directorial decision I would admire). Saving Private Ryan crashed after the first 20 minutes. And so on.

Greatest movies ever made? At the box office. Mostly unmemorable cotton candy. That even his flops make some money reflects his brand name and how difficult it is for unknowns to break in.

Please don't think I'm some art film guy. I like junk, but good junk. Spielberg's Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark are milestones, if not art. My tastes run to Witness or Bladerunner (both Ford's best) or The Big Sleep or Ordinary People (for MTM) or 12 Angry Men or The Outlaw Josey Wales (magnificent Clint) or Das Boot (way better war movie than Pvt. Ryan) or Witness for the Prosecution.... Well, an eclectic crowd. I mention these just as reference to where I'm coming from, not as recommendation.

I doubt I'm alone on this, and of course there's no one actor or director or screenwriter for everyone -- fortunately! I also not expecting to start a career as critic.

Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T

[Twirlip of the Mists]

My tastes run to Witness or Bladerunner (both Ford's best)

How could you forsake The Mosquito Coast? Blade Runner is a great movie, but Ford's performance wasn't that much to write home about. Wooden-by-design. But The Mosquito Coast is a great piece of film.

Das Boot (way better war movie than Pvt. Ryan)

I guess you have a different definition of "better war movie" than I do. I can't even compare Das Boot and Saving Private Ryan. They're completely different works, as far as I can see. The only thing they have in common is that they're both set during a war.

Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T

[MacAndrew]

The Mosquito Coast? Are you insane?!? :) I just didn't see the point, and lost interest despite liking Ford. (For once Ebert and I agree, and I think he/we got it right.)

Bladerunner -- the director's cut allows Ford's character to make more sense, and omits the voice-over for a very different effect.

Oh, I agree, Saving Private Ryan had nothing to do with a war (most of it). More seriously, they are in the same genre. Das Boot is better in the German (subtitled). Private Ryan was not a good movie whatever the genre; a couple of reasons among many being Tom Hanks as cerebral remote tough guy, and these guys slogging through all that to rescue ... Matt Damon! I kept going, hey, there's Matt Damon -- what's he doing there? Di he swing by the set for a drink with Tom Hanks? Hi Matt! Where's Ben Affleck? I know many people liked this movie, and respect that, but I was unconvinced (you can tell) and thought I'd seen much better.

The first 20 minutes of Ryan were like a different movie, and probably one of the most remarkable pseudo-documentaries of the Normandy invasion. I heard over and over how impressed vets were with the portrayal of a really nasty day. It was the tradition then, and once again now, to screen the public from the graphic details, and a lot of these guys came home suffering terribly. Pvt. Ryan's intro did get me thinking about that, and was a remarkable bit of work. I don't know how much credit Spielberg can take.

Every film has its fans, even (gag) Armageddon (on TV tonight ... I wandered down here instead).

If anyone is wondering what this has to do with my first post, I'm still trashing Spielberg. :)

I Liked When the Visitors Turn Out to Be Lizards

[loggia]

Oh, wait, that was "V."

Re:"Taken" from other shows and movies...

[cybermace5]

It was actually done in The Next Generation. The same episode as the Traveler, where Wesley Crusher and the Traveler send the Enterprise bazillions of light years away, and everyone started seeing what they were thinking. It was pretty funny, especially when they guy thought he was burning up so Piccard was yelling at him to get a hold of himself. And then there was the scene where Piccard sat down to a cup of tea with his long-dead mother.

I remembered it as one of the more cheesy episodes of ST:TNG, actually...so Taken must be pretty bad.

Over-Hyped

[SkewlD00d]

It was so hyped I didn't even bother tuning in. Sci-Fi needs to get their act together and show good stuff again, like Lexx season 4.

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.

Simpsons Did It

[emptybody]

SSIA. ;)

G'bye Karma :(

it wasn't about the aliens...

[TinCanFury]

Taken wasn't about the aliens, it was about the abductees. The reason the aliens were in it so little was because Leslie Bohem wanted to concentrate on the lives of the people involved in the "alien conspiracy". It was scifi because it involved aliens and they're "secret plot to take over the earth", but beyond that, it was, like any good scifi(ST:TNG) about the people, their experiences together, etc. Sure, it wasn't amazing in that regard, but honestly, I've never seen a film of any length that was. I thought, for what Taken was written to do, it did an excellent job. I'm glad it didn't get any more into the aliens, I was sort of dissapointed in the 9th episode until i figured it out, because I was afraid they were going to "reveal" too much about the aliens.

Oh well, what do i expect from reviews by people that read slashdot...

Spoiler Alert!!

[CleverNickName]

The Lone Gunmen are killed in the final episode.

You have been warned.

Re:Spoiler Alert!!

[DaytonCIM]

Oh you bastard! You ruined the whole thing! I'm calling Steven right now. I'm sure he'll have a few choice words for Zemeckis and Hanks; so I doubt very much you'll get your audition for The Polar Express.

Taken... By SciFi - OR - Bumpers are better

[emptybody]

It started out great and then got exponentially worse. Too much crying...

I would like to see what was left on the cutting room floor.

Characters that changed completely or were dropped out entirely.

supposedly there was a Narc in the AA mtg.

Charley's personality does a 180.

Little Blondie becomes a half-comatose bawling non-alien.

MaxHeadroom and SheBitch pretend to have a thing for each other... Or do they...Or don't they... Beats me.

Haul in the troops. Bang our sheilds. What you mean she's gone? Oh well I guess we can leave them alone now.

It bit.

The best parts of the show were the living-tattoos on the illustrated-chef, the buzzing in bubble-toed-insect-boy and the suprise budda-gator in the scifi-bumpers between shows

I would love to see a show dedicated to all those creations.

You knew it was going to suck

[Krueger Industrial S]

They started running commercials for Taken in June. With that much advance hype you just knew it was going to suck.

larger than life?

[kinobsd]

A lot of the less stellar movies from Spielberg 'seem' to be from the sci-fi genre. A lot of people were upset with Minority Report, AI, Lost World etc. (with the exception of Close Encounters). The Spielberg films a lot of us cherish are his more -believable- attempts; A Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Jaws. A big part of watching a movie is knowing the characters..

Re:Agree w/Author -- Taken Away and Dropped On Mar

[Twirlip of the Mists]

After the weekend though, it felt as if Spielberg decided to take a nap and let one of his assistants take over.

Seeing as how Spielberg had nothing to do with the story, the writing, the directing, or the editing, that's not too hard to believe.

Re:Sick of reviewers, critics, skeptics, guides, e

[juuri]

Movies serve one purpose -- to entertain.

And books?

And Music?

Movies are just as viable a form of teaching and communication as any other interaction with ideas, no matter their source.

My Impressions

[MBCook]

Well, I have to say that I was wondering when this would be on Slashdot. So here is what I have to say on the series.

Taken

I liked it alot. Yes it had it's flaws, yes there are better things, but it was very entertaining. That they got me to devote 2 hours a night to watching it, to using my VCR to tape my normal favorite shows to watch later (instead of tapeing "Taken" to watch later) shows that was good. The events themselves were well paced, and the show moved along untill the last 2 or 3 episodes, which seemed like they were stretching for time.

I think that they did a very good job overall. I didn't think that the special effects were rediculous. Many times movies/miniseries/etc have special effects that are so over the top that you stop being "in" the movies, and get taken back to reality. That didn't happen here. I also think that Matt Frewer (the guy who played Edison Carter on Max Headroom) was perfect for his role. The little girl was great too. Nothing else seems to stand out that much acting wise. I also have to say that the switching between the 3 families was pretty confusing at first, before I got to know the characters. It seemed like they spent very little screen time on one family before moving to the next in some of the early episodes.

The story was pretty good overall. There were lots of good "it makes you think" type things, or just new twists on old ideas. For example, I loved the idea that the craft that crashed in Roswell crashed BECAUSE OF a weather balloon. I don't think I've ever heard that before. That was just such a perfect idea. I do have a few problems though. First of all, things like the little alien implant being some kind of centipede looking thing which causes people to go insane (or whatever) bothered me. It's not the idea, it's that it wasn't really explained, AT ALL. Also, the whole thing of the burial site in the woods had next to nothing to do with the story, except as an excuse to kill people.

So overall it was quite good. My biggest complaint can be derived from above. I think that there were a few things that they needed to spend more time on, and a number of things that they spent way to much time on (for their impact on the story). Overall, I'd give it a 4.5 or so out of 5. It was very intertaining.

Spielberg

Some have said above that he's "over the hill", "past his time", etc. Well, I think it's hit and miss. "Taken" was good, and I'm glad it was a miniseries because it wouldn't have worked as a movie, or just a 1 hour a week series. "AI" was pretty good, but it was LONG. A good chunk of that movie could go and it would be better. It reminded me ALOT of "Bicentennial Man," with a little bit of an "Outer Limits" episode thrown in. As for "Minority Report," I'm looking forward to seeing it. I always wait 'till things come out on DVD to see 'em, so I can't comment on it.

Sci-Fi Channel

I think they did great with this. It was heavily promoted so it didn't end up flying under the radar. And I'm glad that Spielberg's name was attached, because if that wasn't emphisized, I'm not sure I would have watched. I heard that it got over 6 million viewers one night (or something), which is the largest share any cable show has gotten ever (from what I heard, ignoring pay-per-view events); even outdoing the Sopranno's season primere. I do have two complaints for Sci-Fi though:

1. Ditch the new logo - It's very distracting and anoying. The old dark blue one was much better. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't contantly on screen. It contrasts too much with dark scenes (which is alot of what you show).
2. Get more commercials when you do something like this! It's not so bad when you watch normal TV, but after spending 2 hours a night for 2 weeks, I think I had every commercial memorized by the 4th day or so. It just got so repeditive. All I'm asking is to get more commercials, instead of the same 5 over and over and over. This is a common problem on many cable networks now, IMHO.

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.

It's about time compression of plot......

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

Let me start out by saying that "yes, it plot seemed to be less interesting as the episodes went by"...but I think this has more to do with the time compression element of the story than it does with Steven Spielberg.

I really like the first 5 episodes, I also thought Jesse K. was the best character of the show. The early episodes with Owen Crawford held me spellbound (that character was my manager at Terabeam). The episode directed by the former "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was easily the spookiest. As the story came out of the "time compression" that they were holding to in the early episodes, the plot started to wander. There just wasn't enough depth of character to fill up the final hours.

Remember also that Steven S. was the overseer of all the other directors. The individual episodes had seperate directors and I could feel the difference from show to show.

In the end, it's all just entertainment....and most people here posting watched it...enjoy it, it was free and you also got to see those halfway funny IBM ads.

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.

Re:I agree, but to a point...

[GMontag451]

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.

So did you sit through the other horrendous piece of crap she was in too (I'm talking about Carrie 2)? She seems like she might have some talent, but she sure as hell needs to get better scripts.

Re:The Worst Part!!! TollHouse cookies

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Um... dude, "toll house cookie" is another name for chocolate chip cookie. The chocolate chip cookie was invented in the 1930's by a woman named Wakefield who owned the Toll House Inn just outside of Whitman, Massachusetts. She was trying to make chocolate cookies, but substituted semisweet chocolate for baker's chocolate. Instead of melting into the dough, the little pieces of chocolate stayed intact. The cookies were a big hit, and became known as "toll house cookies" after the inn.

It's very common for people who were raised in the 40's and 50's to say "toll house cookies" instead of "chocolate chip cookies." My mom was born in 1930, and she said "toll house cookies" all her life.

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:The Flaw - possible spoilers

[Cryptnotic]

Well, that would make dating easier...

"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.

Re:"Taken" was actually really good

[Anenga]

you watched 20 hours and seem proud of the fact. does that strike anyone else as a little sad?

How many hours of Farscape, X-Files or Simpsons have you watched? Lurking Slashdot? What on earth is your point?

20 hours poured into good entertainment isn't wasted IMO.

Re:"Taken" was actually really good

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

I would like to see a sequal

Entitled "Returned to Sender" perhaps? The matured Allie is banished from alien-heaven after she re-introduces the species to pr0n and opens up a brothel. In retaliation, she posts a story on slashdot linked to the alien subconcious's website thus causing their ultimate demise.

(Actually, I like the mini-series overall but I just couldn't help myself.)

Re:Agree w/Author -- Taken Away and Dropped On Mar

[Fishstick]

Yeah really. Which part of "Steven Speilburg presents " is not understood?

There were 11 different people credited with directing, and Leslie Bohem is credited with the writing.

What did Speilburg do on this project?

"Executive Producer"

A producer who is not involved in any technical aspects of the filmmaking process, but who is still responsible for the overall production. Typically an executive producer handles business and legal issues. See also associate producer, co-producer, line producer.

There were 7 other people credited with co-producing this little epic.

Steven apparently wrote the checks and had meetings once in a while to oversee what everyone else was doing.

Re:Agree w/Author -- Taken Away and Dropped On Mar

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Steven apparently wrote the checks and had meetings once in a while to oversee what everyone else was doing.

If I had to take a wild-ass guess, I'd say that Spielberg probably backed the production with his reputation and good name. I'm sure this miniseries cost a fortune to produce, and DreamWorks probably wouldn't have been able to raise the money to do it if it hadn't been for Spielberg's involvement.

But again, that's just a guess.

Oh yeah

[MacAndrew]

I forgot to commend Who Framed Roger Rabbit though what I liked about the film had much more to do with the styling, dialog, and Bob Hoskins's amazing ability to act against thin air. Kathleen Turner's uncredited voicing of Jessica Rabbit was very nice. It felt like a movie where Spielberg was farther in the background, some 15 years ago.

Re:I Downloaded Taken

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The compromise between sci-fi and mainstream always sucks.

Yeah. Lord knows movies like The Empire Strikes Back and Wrath of Khan we'd be better off without.

(Part XVII in the "Everything Sucks But Me" series.)

Re:It WAS ressurection for a DAY

[Twirlip of the Mists]

the mecha had captured her "soul" and placed it within the new body, which is why it would only last for a day

No, that doesn't add up. The person we see in Act III is only vaguely reminiscent of the person we see in Act I. It's pretty clear that the Act III Monica is just the product of David's memories and hopes.

Remember, Act I Monica is no stranger to hysterics. Awakening in her house with no memory of how she got there and no trace of her real son or her husband would have sent her over the edge. The speech by the narrator to David is just a polite fiction, just as a parent would tell a child that the presents under the tree came from Santa Claus, or that a dead pet had gone to doggie Heaven.

SciFi replacing FOX for taking alien believers?

[kirkjobsluder]

I've been avoiding the series primarily because SciFi seems to be hell bent on reviving the US UFOlogy entertainment industry. This has been suffering recently since the X-Files colapsed under the weight of its own overdone mythos. There has always been a strong link between fiction about UFOs and the so called "true stories". Many early encounters cribbed details from recent science fiction movies before convirging on the current pattern of abduction stories. At any rate it is interesting to see the sudden invesment by SciFi in the abduction mythos at a time in which even many key players in American UFOlogy are backing away from the huge number of abduction claims made in the 90s.

Close Encounters, Anyone?

[Mulletproof]

After shows like the X-Files, movies like Signs and his own Close Encounters, this series is not simply redundant, but just outright lame

There were some elements of this movie that were done and done quite well, but there simply wasn't enough to hold it together, not to mention I felt like I was watching every alien abduction movie that had ever been filmed spaced across a two weeks and massive hype. To make it worse, you finally find out the core of the Aliens plan of diabolical abductions, cross breeding and secret agendas... It's because they're curious. WHAT!? It took two weeks to tell the audiance that alien abductions are caused by beings that are "curious" and are looking to reawaken their emotions?! They needed this epic breeding program to find out THAT?! Aliens that don't know right and wrong. They're just curious. It was a total anti-climax. And in the end, all is right with the world and psycho woman finally sees the error of her ways, after the murder and attempted murder of a dozen people along the way. Riiiiiight.

I'll ask Spielburg a minor favor here... Don't make another alien abduction movie. Ever. Or a movie about aliens. Or one involving space. Or one...

Re:Those awful Canadian Accents...

[/dev/trash]

I think he means the CBC.

Re:Sick of reviewers, critics, skeptics, guides, e

[Snaller]

Movies serve one purpose -- to entertain.

No, that's not a fact - just an opinion.

Re:Sick of reviewers, critics, skeptics, guides, e

[CapnRob]

Oh, get a grip.
Anime can be tentacle rape. And there's nothing that says it has to be 'captivating, wonderful film.' It's not new - it's been around as long as animation has been made in Japan - and it's just as much of an art form as any other mass media. It's a mass media. There's good anime. There's bad anime. There's tentacle rape anime. There's magical girl anime. There's five-people-in-giant-robots-saving-the-world anime. Some of it is pretty good. Some of it stinks to high heaven. Saying that all anime is 'captivating, wonderful' is like saying that all novels are 'captivating, wonderful,' or all comic books are 'captivating, wonderful,' or ... hell, pick a mass media. By insisting that all anime is incredibly good, you're basically showing that you have absolutely no ability to critically evaluate it. A hint: Any art form or mass media in which a single fight scene can take twenty half-hour episodes to get through, not including the digressions away from said fight scene to show other, minor characters fighting, is not automatically captivating. Nor, I would like to point out, is it automatically wonderful. So, I reiterate: Get a grip.

Spielberg new to TV? Not so

[Gudlyf]

Doesn't anyone recall Spielberg's Amazing Stories ? I'm a huge fan of Twilight Zone, and these were similar shows to that. However, I believe just as with Taken, Spielberg did not wright all of the episodes -- he just had his name attached to the series.

The "Taken" Channel...

[LdyArdRhi]

I was just annoyed as all hell at the total usurpation of the entire channel for a two-week period for this damn mini-series.

When ABC runs a mini-series, they don't suspend every other show on their network for the duration -- they show all of their regular programming at their usual times, changing only necessary shows to open up slots for the mini-series.

But not the Sci-Fi^h^h^h^h^h^hTaken Channel! They removed EVERYTHING BUT "Taken" from the lineup and replaced every single show with the cheesiest movie they could find, as though any timeslot NOT devoted to showing episodes of "Taken" (OR "Roswell" retrospectives" were beamed directly to the Satellite of Love.

I found this maddening, to say the least. I would have liked to be able to turn on the channel at some other time during that two weeks and see something OTHER than "Taken", bad Roswell "in search of" take-offs, or MST3K fodder. At the very least, I would have liked to be able to watch Babylon 5...but that's a totally different complaint. They don't give a crap about any show the fans actually LIKE. (Like Farscape.)

But I digress...

Then there is the sheer level of saturation. They decided to give us the super-deluxe "phalanx-gun" treatment for the "Taken Experience", making absolutely certain that there was NO WAY IN HELL we could miss an episode except on purpose!

Each episode would be shown THREE TIMES in a row, then once again the next night, before the new episode, then all of the first week's episodes were shown AGAIN on Saturday and Sunday, just in case! Then they showed the WHOLE THING this weeekend, in case you missed the last two weeks!

I must admit that it *was* convenient one night, when I simply HAD to watch the 11PM showing due to an evening meeting that ran long, but I could have set my VCR if I had needed to. This was such overwhelming oversaturation, it approached the baroque.

I certainly hope the ratings were what they expected...because it seems to me that Vivendi placed an awful lot of hope on this mini-series. If it didn't generate what they expected, I expect next to hear reports of bankruptcy filings.

---ArdRhi

Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum

Thank you for using the M-word!

[dandelion_wine]

I was wondering how many posts it would take for someone to say it. Yes, not all Spielberg films are happy tales. He's simply a master of melodrama. What offends isn't how sugary things can get, or how sad, but how overtly MANIPULATIVE his touch can be.

If you're even a little sensitive to blatant emotional manipulation, you won't think Saving Private Ryan is all that brilliant. What happened to subtlety? "Oh, but war isn't subtle." Mmm, thanks for the info. Some directors might think tugging on those heartstrings is more effective when it's not done with heavy-gauge cable. *That* is why E.T. disappeared from the public consciousness so soon after it was the incredibly big hit it was (no, not now when it's trendy to trot it out, as an example however not as good viewing fare) -- because it was so sentimental and overtly manipulative, no one wanted to admit they had been successful victims.

Lots of people saying "That's what makes a blockbuster -- make people feel good." Well, maybe. In fact, probably. But **good** films, IMHO -- the ones you don't want to forget -- are the ones that don't give you easy answers, in S-man's case try to push them down your throat. What if Mookie had "done the right thing"? We'd all feel fine as we walked out of the theatre (all is right with the world -- good people do good things and the wicked are punished), and wholly unchallenged. Spike made us sort out some complicated issues for ourselves. (I won't talk about his later stuff)

When has Spielberg ever done more than spoon-feed us his own answers to his questions?

Re:Thank you for using the M-word!

[MacAndrew]

See, I knew I wasn't just a curmudgeonly crank. Or not the only one. :)

I was mystified by people like Ebert going over the top on Ryan. Normally the critics are more wary of pap.

MTBF?

[Angelwrath]

Seems to me, that one possible interpretation could be that David had simply gotten into the two-sigma range of his MTBF and died out, or, like a cell phone in dormant mode, simply exhausted his power supply over thousands of years and it was eventually used up.

Re:"Taken" from other shows and movies...

[slickwillie]

About half the time I thought it resembled X-Files more than anything, especially the part in Alaska. X-Files with a trademark Spielberg so-cute-you-wanna-puke child actor.

Too bad the aliens couldn't have save the mind of the Matt Frewer character onto the Internet....

Another coincidence . . .

[SimplyCosmic]

. . . both stories involved a "star child" half-breed with extraordinary powers who brings the two sides together in some way.

In fact the end of the "V" television series was immediately called back to memory by the end of the last Taken episode. :P

Re:Sick of reviewers, critics, skeptics, guides, e

[geekoid]

"Movies are made to entertain."

yes, and no.

Movies can also be made to educate, or to make a point. the entertaining part is hjow a movie can hold onto a person so the point can be delivered.

I was biased asgainst it..

[geekoid]

.. because its cost is why Farscape was removed.

That's it?

[pbobby]

You make a statement like that but don't post your conclusions after 'picking it apart'?

This article sounds more like a troll posting on a bbs somewhere.

Re:Developed by Kubrick or Spielberg?

[Wonko42]

Kubrick had been working on A.I. for a long time before his discussion with began with Spielberg.

Kubrick developed ideas and art, but never went past that pre-pre-pre-production phase. He tossed his ideas to Spielberg, then died, and Spielberg did the movie. The sentence "A.I. was not largely developed by Kubrick" is true.

A.I. is based on a Brian Aldiss short story, Supertoys Last All Summer Long.

Yes, but Brian Aldiss never went to anyone and said, "Hey, let's make a movie out of this." The idea for the film originated with Kubrick and Spielberg.

the real flaw

[cronel]

Why couldn't the deception last more than a day? They are extremely advanced mecha and as you mention they are in posession of his memories and likely also know how he functions to the last detail. Therefore, why can't they build him another mecha, a mother mecha, designed to meet his expectations exactly, and to have complementary expectations. They would both be happy, forever.

If the answer is that they can't because they are not powerful enough, then that's really convenient. The futuristic mecha are just powerful enough to support your interpretation - not enough to build a satisfying mother from the kids mind, but enough to build one to fool him for one day alone, no DNA involved.

What bothered *me* most wasn't the ending, but the idea itself that you can make things that are "programmed to love" or programmed to X where X is some intentionality. If something is "programmed" to love, how can that feeling they have be called love or even be called a feeling or a mental state? Since love is a mental state, it can only exist in minds, and an important feature of minds is fluidity, and even a certain degree of control over it. Maybe you can't choose who you love but you certainly can choose how you will react to that feeling and that reaction will in turn affect the feeling. In my opinion the notion that you can make minds that can love but cannot have a real reaction to their own love, is nonsensical; like saying, let's draw a square, but without sides. Like I said, it was what bothered *me* about it, it's actually quite common in SF to do this.

On the other hand, assuming you can actually build minds that are "doomed to love", then clearly making such minds would be immoral; it would be like creating a flawed mind deliberately, like consciously creating someone with a mental disease. Since the movie was (supposedly) about A.I. I expected that issue to be dealt in it, but it's not. Instead, we get a tale about a boy and his love, or, as you insightfully put it, about the human condition and its capacity for cruelty... All of which I actually enjoyed. Yes, I liked the movie, heck, I even liked the ending in its plain, rosy interpretation... but to me the movie is not really very good Sci Fi, just a very good story. Not that there's anything wrong with that

I also enjoyed your interpretation but honestly, I think it's one of those retrofitting interpratations we often engage in when we have to 'justify'... Nothing in the final scenes suggests that they are going to kill the kid. The interpretation is indeed possible, i.e. not terribly contradictory to anything in the movie but it would be a stretch to say that it actually stems from it (IMHO). OTOH I've been known to try to rationalize the mystical elements in the matrix, myself :)

Re:the real flaw

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Why couldn't the deception last more than a day? [...] Therefore, why can't they build him another mecha, a mother mecha, designed to meet his expectations exactly, and to have complementary expectations.

Because David loved Monica. He didn't love a shallow simulation of Monica. He could not have been happy forever with a simulation. He would have begun to doubt, and then all would have been lost.

In my opinion the notion that you can make minds that can love but cannot have a real reaction to their own love, is nonsensical

Remember that the object was to build a child. David was built to be emotionally immature. That is, he was built to love without question (once imprinted), and to act solely based on that love. If you're not comfortable with calling it love, call it tropism. It amounts to the same thing. For what is love, but the response that the feeling of love generates inside us?

But the question of whether or not David really could love is beside the point. The movie is about responsibility and morality, and in order to explore those questions you have to posit a robot who loves. Without that, the whole story kind of becomes meaningless.

On the other hand, assuming you can actually build minds that are "doomed to love", then clearly making such minds would be immoral

Exactly. That's the whole point. The first scene of the movie sets up this premise, and the rest of the movie executes it. The conclusion, misanthropic as it is, is that humans are capable of building machines that are moral and compassionate, despite the fact that we ourselves are not.

Nothing in the final scenes suggests that they are going to kill the kid.

Listen to the what the Blue Fairy says. Listen to what the narrator says. Then watch the very last scene carefully. The implication is so clear, it's impossible to imagine that it wasn't deliberate.

Re:the real flaw

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If the mechas are advanced enough to build an exact physical replica of the mother from the boy's memories they must be advanced enough to build a mother's psyche that *cannot* be distinguished from the real thing by the boy.

First of all, there was no physical replica. Most of the third act takes place inside David's brain, as evidenced by the overexposed look of the film. But even if there were, it's a long way from that to creating a simulation of a personality.

I just expected a story about A.I. to deal with this stuff rather than be about the human condition

Stories about computers and artificial intelligence are boring, not even worth listening to. Stories about the human condition can be entertaining, enlightening, perplexing, and so on. You shouldn't be too surprised, I think.

VCR - throw out and get a TIVO!

[sckeener]

Ok /. , I've read a ton of posts where VCRs are being setup to tape TAKEN. Get a TIVO and throw out the VCR for Christmas! With one click I got every episode of TAKEN and since the SciFI channel aired them so frequently, TIVO automaticly readjusted to resolve conflicts with my other shows I record.

If you'd never do it for yourself, then get one for a friend, relative, or lover. TIVO's change the way you watch TV. They will love you for it.
Go to TIVO now and get one.

Let Me Get This Straight ...

[thedbp]

You're upset because you're watching TV and its not original enough for you? Hmmm.....

In related news, I stuck my hand in a blender but it didn't make a milkshake.
*****

My Own Thoughts

[Hangtime]

I loved the series. When the "Taken" series comes out on DVD I will have someone buy it for my birthday/Valentine's Day/Chrismas whatever. I thought the film was awesome up till the last three days when Allie was taken by the government. After that point, it seemed as though the film lost its legs and everybody was trying to figure how to end the series and it got sloppy. The final episode was very disappointing especially the charcter of Lisa Clarke. The actress had done an incredible job up to that point but the last episode the emotion was so fake it really took away from the story. Specifically, on the porch bending down trying to keep Allie from going, her expressions looked like she was laughing instead of the hysteria which I would be going through. Overall, Taken was one of the best scifi stories I have seen/read in a long time. I think my favorite episode was the one in which Allie ends up going with the government. The whole episode taking place in the that tiny room and seeing Allie's powers for the first time was amazing. I was extremely touched when Allie showed the dead man's son to him, allowing him to let go. All in all, an excellent series and almost perfect if it did not fade towards the end. Another excellent project from the SciFi channel, let's hope they can continue you bringing us projects of this caliber.

Re:Why not assume David is in the Matrix?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I know that a program (the ultimate basis of any AI) is extensible

That's the whole point, though. If you open the floodgate by saying that David can grow-- extend, whatever-- the story kind of collapses.

Re:Hmmmm, interesting. It still sucked.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If you think AI was even superficially similar to Blade Runner, you need to watch one or both of the movies again. Both movies deal with human-shaped robots in the not-too-distant future. That's where the similarities end.

Absolutely Taken

[oldstrat]

I feel Taken alright.

Taken away by the parts, quite good in acting, directing, effects, production.

Taken advantage of, the story basically stinks.

Taken finally, I'm missing over 10 hours of my life that I can't really say what happened, or ever hope to get back.

Re:Hmmmm, interesting. It still sucked.

[miu]

If you think AI was even superficially similar to Blade Runner, you need to watch one or both of the movies again. Both movies deal with human-shaped robots in the not-too-distant future. That's where the similarities end.

Some themes always show up when fiction involves a created being that can communicate with its creator. That may be the similarity to which Mr. AC refers.

Re:Hmmmm, interesting. It still sucked.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Some themes always show up when fiction involves a created being that can communicate with its creator.

Like what, for instance? I see Blade Runner as a fairly straightforward story about mortality, with the added layer of the question of identity if you get into the "Deckard's a replicant" thing. Great movie, great story, great themes. AI, on the other hand, really doesn't have anything to say about mortality, and touches on identity (in the "know thyself" sense) only tangentially.

Re:Hmmmm, interesting. It still sucked.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Hmm. Okay, I'll buy it. But if pressed, I would say that Blade Runner deals with merely ethical questions, while AI attempts to invoke much harder moral ones.

Re:Hmmmm, interesting. It still sucked.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

True, but I would say that morals are the rules for generating ethics.

According to what I've been taught, experts (whatever that means) disagree on this point. Some thinkers believe that an ethical system should be entirely self-supporting, whereas a moral system is based on one or more fundamental axioms carved on stone tablets or something. I tend to subscribe to this interpretation as well.

I read your journal review and am going to give AI a second viewing.

I hope you find it's worth your time. If not, flame me or something. ;-)