Taken?

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

Comments

Whats wrong with steve?

[Monkelectric]

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

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

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

[SteweyGriffin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spielberg Did Not Write This

[loggia]

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

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

Over the Hill? ... An Opinion

[carb]

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

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

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

I Liked When the Visitors Turn Out to Be Lizards

[loggia]

Oh, wait, that was "V."

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.

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: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.

"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.