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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

I Liked When the Visitors Turn Out to Be Lizards

[loggia]

Oh, wait, that was "V."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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 . . .

"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: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.

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...

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