The Terminal teaser (Spielberg, Hanks)

[RyoHazuki]

http://www.theterminal-themovie.com/teaser.html

I think its looks pretty decent. CZJ is hot.

[beefjerky]

You know, I wish they would've made the character Iranian like in the actual story it was based on. When I heard that this was going to be made into a movie, I thought of Ben Kingsley in the role.

[PalmerJoss]

I think it looks decent enough. Charming sure, and it looks similar in tone to Catch Me If You Can, which was Spielberg's best in quite some time. Plus, I'm always willing to give Tom Hanks the benefit of the doubt.

[rushmore223]

As far as movie posters go, all I can say is...


...Boorrrring

[mdc3000]

the poster is dull, but the trailer has me hooked.... Spielberg and Hanks is always gold... can't wait for this one.

MATT

[Deftones]

wow, Chi McBride is in everything now that Boston Public was cancelled. :up:

[QuiGonJosh]

This is a Speilberg flick? I couldnt tell one bit...and why oh why did he have to put that terrible actresses Catherine Zeta Jones in this! Cant stand her...dont know if I'll even see this one...

[Supreme Sean]

This movie looks wonderful. That's all I have to say about that.

[Kal-El]

Originally posted by mdc3000
Spielberg and Hanks is always gold... can't wait for this one.

MATT

What he said.

Oh and Josh, Catherine Zeta-Jones is only ONE actress. :D

[Groucho]

Looks good, although it looks like it focuses too much on well-treaded Hollywood romance territory.

[jough]

This looks really strange - it's a bizarre Twilight Zone fantasy (America is closed?) but Tom Hank's character seems in on the gag - the best part of the Twilight Zone or Outer Limits were the stories where WE identified with the main character, and it was the world, not the character, who was wrong.

Right man in a wrong world - like Snopes.

This looks like a wrong man in a wrong world - i.e. Zzzzzzzz....

[Geofferson]

This film does seem rather odd.

[Neeb]

This is based on a true story and a rather tragic one at that. Not because the man in question died... but rather because he's still alive. I hope this doesn't play as a comedy.

[Playitagainsam]

Very sad!

I'm afraid a Spielberg treatment will only schtick and trivialize the subject.


Here's the story of the real guy. (http://www.geektimes.com/michael/culture/reality/merhan-nasseri/stranded.html)

[Groucho]

The real guy has a message for Spielberg and company:

http://www.geektimes.com/michael/culture/reality/merhan-nasseri/images/Nasseri_age_54.jpg

[RyoHazuki]

That jerk turned down Belgium. I don't feel bad for him. I feel bad for Belgium. "Sorry I'd rathed live on an airport bench than in your country."

[jough]

Have you ever been to Belgium?

[Groucho]

"Belgium: At Least We're Not France!"

[Verbal Gorilla]

They should have used this guy:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7885/borat_pic.jpg

"Catherine Zeta-Jones, wow-wow-wee-wow!!"

[Dr. DVD]

This movie looks like another one of Hanks' romantic comedies with CZJ filling Meg Ryan's role. This might have been a better offer at Christmas time. I'll still see it though, as I am a Spielberg completist.

[theneobez]

they should have kept him Iranian *is iranian*

[dcprules]

When I was first at the site, I only saw the tv spot and was only moderately interested (mostly because it was a Hanks and Speilberg affair) but now that I noticed the actual theatrical trailer is up and watching it, I'm definitely looking forward to it. It looks like a nice light and enjoyable romp, which is perfect for the summer movie season. The scene at the end of the trailer with the guy in the bathroom was really funny.

[metaridley]

I thought this was going to be a drama, so the romantic comedy angle really threw me for a loop after watching the trailer. I am a big Speilberg fan, so I will definitely see this. And Tom Hanks is always great. But I am not looking forward to it as much as I was, because if the trailer is any indication of this movie's style and tone, I am not going to be satisfied with it.

We'll see, though.

[digitalfreaknyc]

I'm a huge Spielberg fan...and I like Tom Hanks...but I haven't liked any of his latest films.

AI...CMIYC...MR...all sucked in my opinion. This one ain't lookin' too hot either. I don't know what he's doing lately.

[Pants]

Originally posted by Playitagainsam
Very sad!

I'm afraid a Spielberg treatment will only schtick and trivialize the subject.


Here's the story of the real guy. (http://www.geektimes.com/michael/culture/reality/merhan-nasseri/stranded.html) Fascinating. I think it's pretty clear from what I've seen of the film that it will be filled with pathos. It may have some comedy but I think it will use comedy to explore some issues of modern existance that are clearly evident in this guys story.

[QuikSilver]

This movie looks interesting. Will probably watch this at the theater. When does it come out? Thanks.

[JBurns24]

Originally posted by QuikSilver
This movie looks interesting. Will probably watch this at the theater. When does it come out? Thanks.

June 18th

[j123vt_99]

come on.. a guy living in a terminal hooking up with Zeta-Jones? I'm all for romantic movies, but let's keep them remotely realistic

[RyoHazuki]

New Trailer

http://moviemaze.de/media/trailer/1290.html

[jough]

Well, if Spielberg can make a stupid romantic comedy out of this man's tragic life, he'd better shut the **** up when someone makes a Holocaust comedy.

[Pants]

Originally posted by jough
Well, if Spielberg can make a stupid romantic comedy out of this man's tragic life, he'd better shut the **** up when someone makes a Holocaust comedy. People have and he didn't make a peep. What's your point?

[jough]

My point is that Spielberg is VERY vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films, and here he is turning a man's tragedy into a romantic comedy.

Now, I know no one ever said that Spielberg *isn't* a hypocrite, but this film strikes me as moderately offensive - I'll have to see it to see just how offensive (artistically) it is.

[fumanstan]

Looks interesting to me. The content really doesn't bother me after reading about the man the movie seems to *loosely* be based on.

[JBurns24]

Originally posted by jough
Well, if Spielberg can make a stupid romantic comedy out of this man's tragic life, he'd better shut the **** up when someone makes a Holocaust comedy.


Do you really think that this man's story is in any way even comparable to the holocaust? Me? I'd rather be stuck in an airport for 10 years than be persecuted for my beliefs under the fear of death every day of my life.

[jough]

I'm just wondering out loud why Spielberg is making a film about a<s>n Arab</s> Persian immigrant and turning his tragic situation into a comic farce. Is it Spielberg's intention to dehumanize this man? Why?

My point was that if the man was a Jew instead of a Muslim that Spielberg would never even CONSIDER making the film a comedy. But because he is The Other then he is open to ridicule.

[Pants]

Originally posted by jough
My point is that Spielberg is VERY vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films Really? :hscratch:

Can you give an example of this?

And did you ever consider that the trailer isn't representative of the film. I have a feeling this will be a Tati-esque comedy that makes observations about the isolating condition of everyday life...only the trailer is making it look slapstick and dumb.

But maybe I'll be proven wrong.

[DIVX Rulz]

isn't this a remake of some jean reno moive called Jet Lag from 2002? If it is, then it sounds like hollywood is just remaking a successful foreign movie, they've done it before they'll do it again. I doubt if Speilberg is trying to make some politial statement or mock the real guy... besides comedies are tragedies plus time... maybe its too soon for some of you... as for me I'm sure I'll see it.

[jough]

I will see the film before passing final judgement, of course, but after all, this thread is discussing only the teaser trailer.

[Pants]

So jough: When has Spielberg been vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films?

[MrN]

Originally posted by DIVX Rulz
isn't this a remake of some jean reno moive called Jet Lag from 2002?

Jet Lag is about two people waiting because of a flight delay. This film takes place over a much longer time period.

[shoppingbear]

Originally posted by jough
I'm just wondering out loud why Spielberg is making a film about a<s>n Arab</s> Persian immigrant and turning his tragic situation into a comic farce. Is it Spielberg's intention to dehumanize this man? Why?

My point was that if the man was a Jew instead of a Muslim that Spielberg would never even CONSIDER making the film a comedy. But because he is The Other then he is open to ridicule.
Ooops, sounds like someone is trying to see a Conspiracy here... :rolleyes: What the heck is "The Other"?? Jews have been the subject of humor in film before, how do YOU know what Spielberg has or hasn't considered??

What about "Life is Beautiful", if I recall Spielberg and EVERYONE else was in praise about that, and it was a comedy set IN a concentration camp?

[jough]

Life is Beautiful was not making fun of the Jews, though. The Terminal (or at least, the trailers for the film) seem to be laughing AT Hanks's character, not with him.

It's not a conspiracy, since it involves only one man (Spielberg), but I find it appalling to make fun of someone's tragedy. Spielberg said that Gibson's "The Passion" was anti-semetic before he had seen it, and made reference to anti-Jewish sentiments in film at a talk he gave a few months ago.

Now he's making a film with anti-Iranian sentiments, and is trying to get around his detractors by making Hanks a refugee from a fictional foreign country, so as to not potentially offend anyone.

The problem is, the story's based on the life of a REAL man, from a REAL country.

[Pants]

And you still didn't answer my question.

[beefjerky]

Originally posted by jough
But because he is The Other then he is open to ridicule.

Not to be an ass, but didn't you also think that Lost in Translation wasn't racist, and that the Japanese people weren't dehumanized in it? After all, just like the Japanese people in LiT, this man is being laughed at, not with. If you thought that "movies can't be arrogant or smug," how can this movie be anti-Iranian or racist?

[jough]

I didn't say the movie was anti-Iranian, I said that Spielberg is. People can be arrogant and smug.

Case in point ^^^

And the difference is that Lost in Translation WASN'T making fun of the Japanese or their culture. The only subject of derision was the caucasian actress (who was doing an impersonation of Cameron Diaz, who was chummy with the writer/director's ex-husband). Surely though the writer/director can't be seen as dehumanizing white people?

And Pants, I did answer your question - you just have to actually READ my posts.

[beefjerky]

Originally posted by jough
I didn't say the movie was anti-Iranian, I said that Spielberg is. People can be arrogant and smut.

Case in point ^^^

And the difference is that Lost in Translation WASN'T making fun of the Japanese or their culture. The only subject of derision was the caucasian actress (who was doing an impersonation of Cameron Diaz, who was chummy with the writer/director's ex-husband). Surely though the writer/director can't be seen as dehumanizing white people?

And Pants, I did answer your question - you just have to actually READ my posts.

a film with anti-Iranian sentiments

You see one white person loosely based on an Iranian and you scream racist, but you're completely oblivious to the fact that every single Japanese person in LiT was presented in a completely one-dimensional manner only meant to elicit laughs. I don't get how you also fail to see that the white people in LiT were presented in a variety of completely fleshed out roles. Of course one ditzy character isn't going to dehumanize all white people, because to balance that you had two characters that were multi-dimensional, going through troubles and redemption. But what does a slew of one-dimensional Japanese clowns have to say about dehumanization?

So I don't get how you can even have problems with the film making fun of Hank's character when you say that films can't take any stance. You obviously pointed out that Life is Beautiful, not Roberto Benigni, didn't make fun of Jews. Obviously the film and the film maker are interchangeable to you, so what's the difference?

[RyoHazuki]

Any links to Speilberg saying The Passion was anti-semetic?

[jough]

Originally posted by RyoHazuki
Any links to Speilberg saying The Passion was anti-semetic?

It was at a talk he gave to film school students, but there may be a transcript.

My point was that he's usually VERY vocal about films that offend him because they depict Jews in a negative fashion (and he's rightfully angry and vocal about anti-semitism - I'm not faulting him there) but now here he is making a film where he makes fun of a Muslim.

But in the post 9/11 atmosphere of the good ol' US of frickin' A, I guess anti-muslim sentiments are not only tolerated, but cheered.

[JBurns24]

Originally posted by jough
I didn't say the movie was anti-Iranian, I said that Spielberg is.

I'm not sure if adapting the story the way it was done really qualifies it to be called anti-Iranian, but that's just my opinion. Even so, I think that all of us are forgetting something important about all this. Spielberg didn't write this script so why would he be considered anti-Iranian? Cause if the director is than by default aren't the writers and producers?

[RyoHazuki]

Originally posted by jough
It was at a talk he gave to film school students, but there may be a transcript. Where did you hear that?

[Birrman54]

Originally posted by RyoHazuki
Where did you hear that?

"When I do see the film, the first person who will hear from me will be Mel Gibson and no one else," - Steven Spielberg

So.... I guess he didn't really say anything to any film students.

Feel free to google it.

birrman54

[shoppingbear]

Originally posted by jough
It was at a talk he gave to film school students, but there may be a transcript.

My point was that he's usually VERY vocal about films that offend him because they depict Jews in a negative fashion (and he's rightfully angry and vocal about anti-semitism - I'm not faulting him there) but now here he is making a film where he makes fun of a Muslim.

But in the post 9/11 atmosphere of the good ol' US of frickin' A, I guess anti-muslim sentiments are not only tolerated, but cheered.
Ah yes, it was at some hard-to-provide-proof talk, I see... :rolleyes:

Wow, I've never seen a poster with a bigger conspiracy chip on their shoulder before. First it's the film that's anti-Iranian, and that means Spielberg (who didn't write it, but let's conveniently overlook that... did he produce it, by the way?) MUST be anti-Iranian. Then any film that someone points out that pokes fun at some other group (which is a staple of film since it began, duhhh), you dismiss that by saying that doesn't prove that the filmmaker was making fun of that group. Umm, sounds like someone is rummaging for "proof" that Spielberg is "out to get Muslims". Give us some independant-source links to some of these "very vocal" rants against anti-semitic films, and maybe you'll look a LITTLE less paranoid. :rolleyes: Or, lemme guess, it's a HUGE conspiracy by the press, no one will print Spielberg's "anti-Muslim rants", right? :lol:

[JBurns24]

:lol: shoppingbear

yes, Spielberg is one of the 7 producers credited on the film

[jough]

I never said it was a damn conspiracy. Just a little hypocritical of Spielberg.

And yes, ultimately the director is the author of a film - especially someone in Spielberg's position, where he not only makes the film, but also owns the studio. He answers to NO ONE and has total control over the content and tone of his films.

That he didn't write it means to you that he had nothing to do with its message, content, or tone? Have you ever SEEN a movie?

Anyway, as far as my original point goes, which has been blown out of proportion by having to reply to idiocy, was really a rhetorical question that only Spielberg, not you chuckleheads, can answer:

If the film was about a Jewish immigrant who suffered trapped in an airport for over ten years, would the film still make fun of his struggle as a silly romantic comedy starring Tom Hanks and Catherine Zeta-Jones, or would it be a serious, sympathetic (and with Spielberg, likely melodramatic) look at his troubles and travails?

DON'T ANSWER - THE QUESTION IS RHETORICAL UNLESS YOU ARE STEVEN SPIELBERG!

Just try to think about it before you reply. I know it'll be tough, but try.

[JBurns24]

Let's not forget how this whole thing started:

Originally posted by jough
Well, if Spielberg can make a stupid romantic comedy out of this man's tragic life, he'd better shut the **** up when someone makes a Holocaust comedy.
Soon after with this:

Originally posted by jough
My point is that Spielberg is VERY vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films...
Which you have yet to prove in any way despite Pants repeating his question of this

Originally posted by jough
Spielberg said that Gibson's "The Passion" was anti-semetic before he had seen it, and made reference to anti-Jewish sentiments in film at a talk he gave a few months ago.
Again, no evidence...in fact Birrman54 showed that this didn't really seem to happen.

Originally posted by jough
I didn't say the movie was anti-Iranian, I said that Spielberg is.

So does that mean Mel Brooks is a racist for his portrayal of African-Americans in some of his films? Are the Wayan Bros. racist for some of the ways white people are shown in their films? Now before you say that those examples don't count because their films weren't based on true stories, think about this:
Wouldn't it really be worse if the main character was kept iranian (the person this is based on is also half-british) and then the iranian culture was made the butt of most of the jokes? By changing the background of the character to a country that doesn't exist it helps prevent the viewers from stereotyping Iranians based on what they might see in the film. So we can't leave the theater and say "wow, that movie really made fun of muslims, iranians, etc..."

[beefjerky]

Originally posted by jough
Just try to think about it before you reply. I know it'll be tough, but try.

Please, let's not be too full of ourselves. You've already contradicted yourself and shown that you have a very biased view when it comes to racism in movies.

[jough]

Originally posted by JBurns24
So does that mean Mel Brooks is a racist for his portrayal of African-Americans in some of his films?

YES!

Are the Wayan Bros. racist for some of the ways white people are shown in their films?

YES!

Wouldn't it really be worse if the main character was kept iranian (the person this is based on is also half-british) and then the iranian culture was made the butt of most of the jokes? By changing the background of the character to a country that doesn't exist it helps prevent the viewers from stereotyping Iranians based on what they might see in the film. So we can't leave the theater and say "wow, that movie really made fun of muslims, iranians, etc..."

Well, it wouldn't be worse if you read my post above. I said the same thing.

No, it's NOT better that they made the character from a fictional country - but only because it is based on a real person.

Think about it this way: would the Holocaust be better if it happened to people other than the Jews?

That's what you're saying - that since the country isn't real, then the racism isn't either? Everything's okay?

As I said above, I'm sure Spielberg changed the man's race to avoid the potential cries of racism. Would it still be offensive if the country was fictional, AND the entire plot was invented? Maybe, because it could still be generating hatred of Otherness.

I'm not one who generally finds much offensive, but after hearing Spielberg's comments on racism in films it's interesting to see his next film project turn personal tragedy into farce.

[Rogue588]

Originally posted by Birrman54
"When I do see the film, the first person who will hear from me will be Mel Gibson and no one else," - Steven Spielberg

So.... I guess he didn't really say anything to any film students.

Feel free to google it.Done.Spielberg on 'the Passion': No Comment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4447621/)

Director says he'll talk to Gibson directly after seeing film

LOS ANGELES - Declaring himself “too smart to answer a question like that,” Steven Spielberg on Wednesday deftly sidestepped the controversy surrounding fellow filmmaker Mel Gibson’s box office smash, “The Passion of the Christ,” which has been accused of anti-semitism.

He said he had yet to see the film, which depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ’s life. In its first week, it grossed more than $125 million at the domestic box office.

“I certainly am not going to comment based on circumstantial evidence from what I’ve been hearing and feeling in the last seven or eight days,” Spielberg said at a news conference to promote the DVD release of his Oscar-winning Holocaust epic “Schindler’s List.”

“I think it’s much too important, and I’m really too smart to answer a question like that.

“When I do see the film, the first person who will hear from me will be Mel Gibson and no one else,” he added.

Jewish groups have said “Passion” resurrects old claims that the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus. Gibson’s father, Hutton, a traditionalist Catholic, has said much of the Holocaust was fiction.

Flanked by Holocaust survivors, Los Angeles teens and many of the film’s stars, including Ralph Fiennes, Ben Kingsley, Embeth Davidtz and Caroline Goodall, Spielberg said he hoped “Schindler’s List” would prove to Holocaust deniers that the murder of 6 million Jews did occur and that it would help educate children to prevent history from repeating itself.

The DVD will include an 11-minute clip explaining the work of Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation, which is dedicated to archiving the testimonies of Holocaust survivors, and a 77-minute documentary, “Voices From the List,” which presents never-before-seen commentaries from Schindler survivors.

“There are Holocaust deniers who are so stuck in their hatred for Jews that neither 'Schindler’s List’ nor the Shoah Foundation will be able to convince them that 6 million murders actually occurred, but still we must try to convince them,” Spielberg said.

Spielberg said he delayed the release of the DVD in order to celebrate the 10th anniversary of both the film and the foundation, which has collected more than 52,000 Holocaust survivor testimonies in 56 countries. Half of that footage has been digitally indexed so that it can be accessed and seen worldwide.

Spielberg escorted several Holocaust survivors and some of the stars and filmmakers involved in the making of “Schindler’s List” on a tour of the Shoah Foundation’s offices. Among them was survivor Leon Leyson, who told Spielberg there was no doubt in his mind that the director revived the history of the Holocaust just as it was headed into “oblivion.”

Survivor Helen Jonas-Rosenzweig told the director, “Schindler saved us, but you gave us our second life.”

Spielberg said that in the decade since the release of “Schindler’s List,” the world has become a “very sad place again,” which shows that people “don’t really learn that much from history, and they need to.”Since I can't remember which way MSNBC leans, it was also on CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/04/film.spielberg.reut/). I couldn't find it on FOX News, though.

[Rogue588]

THIS would offend me more than Spielberg's beliefs...

http://members.aol.com/rogue588/DVDTalk/terminal.jpg

[jough]

Originally posted by Rogue588
THIS would offend me more than Spielberg's beliefs...

On Star****s product placement, there can be no dispute. :down:

[Rogue588]

:lol: :up:

or perhaps it was my fault for searching the upper level first..:lol:

[JBurns24]

Originally posted by jough
I'm not one who generally finds much offensive, but after hearing Spielberg's comments on racism in films it's interesting to see his next film project turn personal tragedy into farce.

If you really find Mel Brooks and the Wayan Bros. films so offensive you feel they're racist, then maybe you do find many things offensive.

What comments has Spielberg made on racism in film? I'm not trying to say he hasn't said anything, I'm genuinely interested in reading what he has said.

[jough]

Originally posted by JBurns24
If you really find Mel Brooks and the Wayan Bros. films so offensive you feel they're racist, then maybe you do find many things offensive.

I didn't say that I found them offensive - I said that they were racist.

[Pants]

Since Mel Brooks isn't here to defend himself, I'll go ahead and do it for him:

Jough you f***ing crazy. Mel Brooks doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Have you even seen any of his films? Blazing Saddles is an entire film about tolerance and acceptance. You must be out of your god damn mind. If Mel Brooks were here I hope he'd stomp your nuts.

[jough]

Blazing Saddles is f'ing hilarious but let's face it, some of the humour comes from making fun of racial stereotypes.

In any case, I don't get offended when people make fun of middle class white guys either. I'm pretty much only offended by social injustice, sanctimony, and hypocrisy.

I generally have a lot of respect for Sir Steven, but in this one case he may have stepped on a landmine. There was mention of this very issue in last week's Entertainment Weekly (the Spider-Man on the cover issue, that has a summer movie guide inside) and evidently the alterations from the facts were done while directors were still playing musical chairs with the project, but once Spielberg comes on board, he's responsible for every aspect of the picture.

Directors are like captains of a ship - they're responsible for what everyone else does, since they have the final decision on everything. Since Spielberg owns the studio too, he pretty much doesn't have to answer to ANYONE - this frees him to do whatever he wants, but it also means that he's completely responsible for his films.

I can't wait to see this, even if only to not like it.

[JBurns24]

Originally posted by jough
I generally have a lot of respect for Sir Steven, but in this one case he may have stepped on a landmine. There was mention of this very issue in last week's Entertainment Weekly (the Spider-Man on the cover issue, that has a summer movie guide inside) and evidently the alterations from the facts were done while directors were still playing musical chairs with the project, but once Spielberg comes on board, he's responsible for every aspect of the picture.

Directors are like captains of a ship - they're responsible for what everyone else does, since they have the final decision on everything. Since Spielberg owns the studio too, he pretty much doesn't have to answer to ANYONE - this frees him to do whatever he wants, but it also means that he's completely responsible for his films.
You know, I really hoped that this whole thing was over and done with...here's the entertainment weekly article (most of it anyway, the paragraph I skip has no relevance on the issue at hand:

"The scenario was inspired by the real-life plight of Iranian exile Merhand Karimi Nasseri, who's bedded down at Charles de Gaulle Airport outside Paris for years...""...It was written in a pre-9/11 world," says Hanks."It was rooted in the way airports used to operate, when there was a great degree of freedom to move about. The two big questions were, Can it accurately reflect a post-9/11 world, and should it?"
Directors Sam Mendes, Robert Zemeckis, and Lasse Hallstrom reportedly kicked the project's tires. But it was Spielberg who climbed aboard after a new script draft by Nathanson (Catch me...) updated the airport mood to a higher-alert state. Spicing up the story line are a flight attendant (Zeta-Jones) who falls in love with Navorski, a martinet security chief (Tucci, who reports the script was "strong but always in flux") and what Spielberg calls a "beautiful, Damon Runyonesque international motley crew of travelers and airport workers" The article then goes into details on the production design.

Now if Spielberg cam onboard after the new script had been completed, how can you say he was in complete control of it. The article even explains why the script was changed the way it was. What you're making your argument sound like jough is that Spielberg joined the project in the development phase and just altered the whole thing. And while I won't dispute I'm sure he had a say in the script, there has never been any reported instances that I know of, that have Spielberg coming in and just changing everything around to what he feels it should be. By the sounds of it you also make it seem like Spielberg has no respect for anyone else's vision of the film...which is not the case either by the sounds of this article. Now I'm not saying the director doesn't have complete control over the movie, but to assume that Spielberg (who works with many of the same people on his films) really would do "whatever he wants" and just ignore the input of production designers, costume designers, the cast and everyone else involved is a tad exaggerated in my opinion.

And as to your argument that Spielberg is anti-Iranian because he changed the background of the character here's something else from the EW article:
"Niccol and Gervasi had little trouble fictionalizing Nasseri into Navorski..." I don't see anything in the article that would point to Spielberg coming up with that idea.

[jough]

Did you even read my post? You just said pretty much the same thing I did, but in an argumentative way, as if you were trying to disprove something I posted.

Regardless of when the screenplay was written, Spielberg is COMPLETELY responsible for EVERYTHING in the finished film - the music, the acting, the script, the visual effects - EVERYTHING. He has total control over the film and even owns the studio. Spielberg answers to NO ONE.

So yes, Spielberg is completely to blame/congratulate when one of his films either works or doesn't. He's in the rare Hollywood catbird seat of being in total control.

[JBurns24]

Originally posted by jough
Did you even read my post? You just said pretty much the same thing I did, but in an argumentative way, as if you were trying to disprove something I posted.
um...you said
Originally posted by jough
evidently the alterations from the facts were done while directors were still playing musical chairs with the project, but once Spielberg comes on board, he's responsible for every aspect of the picture.
whereas i said
Originally posted by JBurns24
Directors Sam Mendes, Robert Zemeckis, and Lasse Hallstrom reportedly kicked the project's tires. But it was Spielberg who climbed aboard after a new script draft by Nathanson
which shows that before Spielberg came on board nearly all the aspects of the script had already been set in stone and before you worry about me disproving anything you say, why don't you prove some of the things you say?
Originally posted by jough
My point is that Spielberg is VERY vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films...

How so?
Originally posted by jough
My point was that if the man was a Jew instead of a Muslim that Spielberg would never even CONSIDER making the film a comedy. But because he is The Other then he is open to ridicule.
Talk with Spielberg a lot do you?
Originally posted by jough
Spielberg said that Gibson's "The Passion" was anti-semetic before he had seen it, and made reference to anti-Jewish sentiments in film at a talk he gave a few months ago.

Somebody already disproved this didn't they?
Originally posted by Birrman54
"When I do see the film, the first person who will hear from me will be Mel Gibson and no one else," - Steven Spielberg
birrman54
Yup, they did
Originally posted by jough
Think about it this way: would the Holocaust be better if it happened to people other than the Jews?
Again drawing similarities between genocide and one man trapped in an airport, while tragic can no way be compared to the holocaust.
Originally posted by jough
That's what you're saying - that since the country isn't real, then the racism isn't either? Everything's okay?
SYLLABICATION: rac·ism
NOUN: 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race
The film is about a fictional country. If the race doesn't exist how can racism? Yes I know your response is it "generates hatred of Otherness" However, the story of a person adjusting to other customs has been done so many times I guess all of Hollywood is racist. Unless you've ever met Mr. Nasseri you really have no basis to know whether they're mocking him or not.
Originally posted by jough
Regardless of when the screenplay was written, Spielberg is COMPLETELY responsible for EVERYTHING in the finished film - the music, the acting, the script, the visual effects - EVERYTHING.
You're right...I forgot that John Williams doesn't write the score, I forgot that Tom Hanks isn't the one who can show emotion on the spot, I forgot that Steven Spielberg must have writing credits on the film, and obviously I forgot that Spielberg is the one behind all the computers at ILM. Filmmaking is collaborating! I'm almost positive that every commentary I've ever listened to and every behind the scenes documentary that talks about pre-production and filmmaking shows the director talking over decisions with people. Yes, he adds input, but the original designs, hence the root of what you see on screen, is not drawn or sculpted by Steven Spielberg.
Originally posted by jough
he pretty much doesn't have to answer to ANYONE - this frees him to do whatever he wants, but it also means that he's completely responsible for his films.

So Janus Kaminski deserve no credit for his cinematography? Spielberg my set up the shots, but Kaminski is the one who has to put it all together. The editing by Michael Kahn deserves no credit?
If you can't see that what's on screen is a collaborative effort between different departments, different personalities and different ideas than maybe you've never seen a film. Wait let me guess your response "Spielberg is captain of the ship, what he says goes"
I'd like everyone's input on this...has anyone ever said that the movie was "all because of them" or do they say "it was a great collaboration...etc..."

[CrazeeDonkee]

Hmm, I thought he was being respectful and didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings by making it so that the guy is from some make-believe country and also not Arab/Persian.

Did he get the original guy's blessings to do the movie? I'm sure it would be bad PR if he personally objects to these changes.

[jough]

If you can't see that what's on screen is a collaborative effort between different departments, different personalities and different ideas than maybe you've never seen a film.

It's obvious we're working from different ideas about filmmaking - do a google search for "auteur theory" to read up a bit on a director being the author of a film (the way a novelist is the author of a book) if you'd like to discuss this subject with an informed opinion.

I didn't say that films weren't collaborative. I never used the word "collaborative" or "collaborate" in any of my posts in this thread. Are you still forgetting to read first before replying?

Spielberg (and other directors with his power to have final say over all aspects of a film's production) ultimately steers the production and decides on every single frame. Does he have to compromise? Sure. Sometimes it's not feasible to have Tom Hanks come back and re-shoot a scene that Spielberg isn't happy with - so he has to decide on which take to use.

Why do you think that Kaminski, Michael Kahn, John Williams, etc., don't deserve credit for their part? They're all fine artists in their own right, but then again, their work is in collaboration with Spielberg - he relies on their talent and expertise and then decides on whether some element is fine or whether something needs to be changed.

Do you seriously think that if Spielberg objected to something in the script that it wouldn't be changed? If a scene didn't work, you think he'd just leave it, because the screenwriter wrote it that way?

um...you said

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jough
evidently the alterations from the facts were done while directors were still playing musical chairs with the project, but once Spielberg comes on board, he's responsible for every aspect of the picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


whereas i said

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JBurns24
Directors Sam Mendes, Robert Zemeckis, and Lasse Hallstrom reportedly kicked the project's tires. But it was Spielberg who climbed aboard after a new script draft by Nathanson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


which shows that before Spielberg came on board nearly all the aspects of the script had already been set in stone

You didn't really write that, of course - you were quoting from EW, which I was paraphrasing. In essence, we were both saying the same thing (except that I used my own words). So why are you arguing again? Just to argue? You keep regurgitating my points back to me and claiming them to be your own.

Somebody already disproved this didn't they?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Birrman54
"When I do see the film, the first person who will hear from me will be Mel Gibson and no one else," - Steven Spielberg
birrman54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yup, they did

Well, I guess that makes him a liar, then, doesn't it?

Spielberg may have said that to the press, but when speaking in semi-private, a different story emerges.

The film is about a fictional country. If the race doesn't exist how can racism? Yes I know your response is it "generates hatred of Otherness" However, the story of a person adjusting to other customs has been done so many times I guess all of Hollywood is racist. Unless you've ever met Mr. Nasseri you really have no basis to know whether they're mocking him or not.

That's a bit naive. I don't need to have met Cameron Diaz to know that they were mocking her in "Lost in Translation."

I don't know if you've ever met President Bush, and will assume that you haven't, but I think even you could comprehend a sketch making fun of him on SNL.

And it's not a story of a fictional man from a fictional country - again, I think you may have missed this despite it being mentioned in just about every post in this thread - the film is based on a real person, from a REAL country. That they don't mention that country by name in the film, and change his name slightly doesn't change the fact that it's based on actual events.

Not that I expect the real Mr. Nasseri ever dated Catherine Zeta-Jones.

Oh, and by the way, I had to laugh at Tucci's quote. "Strong, but always in flux" is a nice way of saying "constantly being re-written because it was codswallop."

Man, and my New Year's resolution was to not feed the trolls anymore...

[Cathepsin]

Originally posted by jough
I don't need to have met Cameron Diaz to know that they were mocking her in "Lost in Translation."

No, but you had to watch Lost in Translation to see that they were mocking her in Lost in Translation. You had to see the film to get the character in its context.

I'm afraid I just don't get where adapting the story of the man's life into a mainstream Hollywood piece translates into mocking him. This doesn't look like it's going to be Bubble Boy.

[JBurns24]

Originally posted by jough
In essence, we were both saying the same thing (except that I used my own words). So why are you arguing again? Just to argue? You keep regurgitating my points back to me and claiming them to be your own.
Again, how does that make any sense? I don't want any of your points to be my own because you can't prove 80% of what you say such as:
Originally posted by jough
Well, I guess that makes him a liar, then, doesn't it?Spielberg may have said that to the press, but when speaking in semi-private, a different story emerges.
Where is the proof of this, where's this transcript you claim may exist? There is documented evidence of Spielberg saying that he would not comment in public about it. Unless you were there in this "semi-private" conversation of his what basis do you have for calling him a liar?
Originally posted by jough
And it's not a story of a fictional man from a fictional country - again, I think you may have missed this despite it being mentioned in just about every post in this thread - the film is based on a real person, from a REAL country. That they don't mention that country by name in the film, and change his name slightly doesn't change the fact that it's based on actual events.
You're really beating this argument into the ground. No you don't need to have met Cameron Diaz or President Bush to know that they're being mocked, but you have had some exposure to both these people that lets you understand the jokes being made. What exposure has any of us had to Mr. Nasseri to say whether or not he's being mocked. Tom Hanks may be playing a role that is nothing like the real person. How can we say he's being mocked till we actually see the film?
Originally posted by jough
Man, and my New Year's resolution was to not feed the trolls anymore...
I guess by trolls you mean people who like to have other people show proof of their arguments...which you still have yet to do for the most part.

[Verbal Gorilla]

Is everyone in this thread living in a box? Hank's character is obviously from a former Soviet bloc or at least communist eastern european country. Why are any of you talking about Iran?

[JBurns24]

because the man that this happened too, Merhan Karimi Kasseri is a half Iranian half British man who ended up getting trapped in an airport after he was expelled from Iran for his political views. The film changes this and has the Tom Hanks character of Viktor Navorski hailing from a fictional Eastern European country of Krakozhia.

[jaeufraser]

Originally posted by JBurns24
because the man that this happened too, Merhan Karimi Kasseri is a half Iranian half British man who ended up getting trapped in an airport after he was expelled from Iran for his political views. The film changes this and has the Tom Hanks character of Viktor Navorski hailing from a fictional Eastern European country of Krakozhia.

And are these changes bad, or even racist? I don't think so. The idea of a man trapped in an airport for years on end is interesting. Interesting enough to make a story. But is the man himself interesting enough to make a movie about? I've read about the real guy, and quite frankly, not really. He elected to stay in the airport as opposed to moving to Belgium, and is probably kind of alone now. So they took the premise, and made a new story out of it. They avoided race by making one up. I'm sorry, but the filmmakers had no responsibility to be accurate about his life, and in no way is the new story offensive, racist, or a mockery of the original man. If anything, it's barely about the original man...just inspired by his story.

[JBurns24]

I agree completely with that jaeufraser :thumbsup:
Other people however, feel differently than we do about this
I was just explaining to verbal gorilla why the topic of Iran was being discussed in the first place

[MrN]

I don't know why this is such a big debate - Spielberg is a populist director. He's not going to make a film with unknown actors and have it bomb. The Hanks/Spielberg will guarantee a big boxoffice and thats the main reason for the changes, not because Spielberg wanted to take a shot at certain minorities.

[Verbal Gorilla]

Originally posted by JBurns24
because the man that this happened too, Merhan Karimi Kasseri is a half Iranian half British man who ended up getting trapped in an airport after he was expelled from Iran for his political views. The film changes this and has the Tom Hanks character of Viktor Navorski hailing from a fictional Eastern European country of Krakozhia.

Oh, sorry...missed that part. Thanks.

[shoppingbear]

Originally posted by JBurns24
Talk with Spielberg a lot do you?

Somebody already disproved this didn't they?

Yup, they did

Again drawing similarities between genocide and one man trapped in an airport, while tragic can no way be compared to the holocaust.

:lol: JBurns24 has just officially became my favorite member on the movietalk board... :D

[JBurns24]

lol, nice to have a fan...thanks

[shoppingbear]

Originally posted by JBurns24
lol, nice to have a fan...thanks
No, thank you! :D Lines like "Talk with Spielberg a lot do you?" just make threads like this for me! :lol: