The Terminal (Spielberg, Hanks)
04-29-04, 07:17 PM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jough
But because he is The Other then he is open to ridicule.
But because he is The Other then he is open to ridicule.
04-29-04, 08:50 PM
#52
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
04-29-04, 09:04 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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?
Last edited by beefjerky; 04-29-04 at 09:12 PM.
04-29-04, 09:15 PM
#55
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RyoHazuki
Any links to Speilberg saying The Passion was anti-semetic?
Any links to Speilberg saying The Passion was anti-semetic?
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.
04-29-04, 09:43 PM
#56
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jough
I didn't say the movie was anti-Iranian, I said that Spielberg is.
I didn't say the movie was anti-Iranian, I said that Spielberg is.
04-29-04, 10:11 PM
#58
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RyoHazuki
Where did you hear that?
Where did you hear that?
So.... I guess he didn't really say anything to any film students.
Feel free to google it.
birrman54
04-30-04, 01:23 AM
#59
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lounging on the beach in L.A., frappucino in hand...
Posts: 4,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Or, lemme guess, it's a HUGE conspiracy by the press, no one will print Spielberg's "anti-Muslim rants", right? 
04-30-04, 07:58 AM
#61
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by jough; 04-30-04 at 08:03 AM.
04-30-04, 01:01 PM
#62
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget how this whole thing started:
Soon after with this:
Which you have yet to prove in any way despite Pants repeating his question of this
Again, no evidence...in fact Birrman54 showed that this didn't really seem to happen.
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..."
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.
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.
Originally posted by jough
My point is that Spielberg is VERY vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films...
My point is that Spielberg is VERY vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films...
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.
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.
Originally posted by jough
I didn't say the movie was anti-Iranian, I said that Spielberg is.
I didn't say the movie was anti-Iranian, I said that Spielberg is.
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..."
04-30-04, 01:09 PM
#63
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jough
Just try to think about it before you reply. I know it'll be tough, but try.
Just try to think about it before you reply. I know it'll be tough, but try.
04-30-04, 04:07 PM
#64
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JBurns24
So does that mean Mel Brooks is a racist for his portrayal of African-Americans in some of his films?
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?
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..."
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.
04-30-04, 04:08 PM
#65
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Spielberg on 'the Passion': No Comment
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.”
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.”
04-30-04, 04:56 PM
#67
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Rogue588
THIS would offend me more than Spielberg's beliefs...
THIS would offend me more than Spielberg's beliefs...
04-30-04, 09:45 PM
#69
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
04-30-04, 11:45 PM
#70
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
05-02-04, 03:28 PM
#71
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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 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.
05-02-04, 05:18 PM
#72
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
05-02-04, 09:25 PM
#73
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"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.
05-02-04, 10:43 PM
#74
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
05-03-04, 12:44 AM
#75
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Originally posted by jough
My point is that Spielberg is VERY vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films...
My point is that Spielberg is VERY vocal about what he doesn't like other directors doing in films...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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
Originally posted by jough
Think about it this way: would the Holocaust be better if it happened to people other than the Jews?
Think about it this way: would the Holocaust be better if it happened to people other than the Jews?
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?
That's what you're saying - that since the country isn't real, then the racism isn't either? Everything's okay?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..."
Last edited by JBurns24; 05-03-04 at 01:32 AM.