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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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:
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?
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?
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

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
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

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

shoppingbear

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

JBurns24

lol, nice to have a fan...thanks

shoppingbear

No, thank you! Lines like "Talk with Spielberg a lot do you?" just make threads like this for me!

Porno Star

There's a movie coming in June called 'The Terminal' starring Tom Hanks and directed by Steven Spielberg. I heard a rumor that there really was a guy who lived in JFK airport for like 10 years cause he couldn't come into the United States nor go back to his own country. Is this true? Is this movie based on a true story?

atari2600

i read that as well. i think its true.

shimmoril

Yes.

Ranger

Boy, that sounds like one lame movie.

muggins

There is a guy in question at the Paris airport:

http://www.snopes.com/travel/airline/airport.htm

NotThatGuy

JFK?

I thought it was some french airport. And it wasn't 10 years..it was 6-7? He was also offered safe passaged to the country...but he didn't want to leave the airport.

-pedagogue

fumanstan

There's a decently long thread about this film from a few weeks ago discussing the true story.

jaeufraser

It's loosely based on an Iranian guy stuck in a French airport. Granted the movie just takes the basic concept and develops its own story from that idea, it's not a retelling of his story. Just an offshoot based on what happened to him.

FiveO

It says at the bottom of the snopes story that the movie is loosely based on his story.

OldBoy

this is absolutely a true story...he can leave at anytime, but simply doesn't want to. He is $250,000 richer for selling his story and thus financially secure. There is also an interview in the current Premiere magazine that details his story a bit, but attests to his being secure in his decisions and comfortable with keeping put in his little outpost at the airport.

POWERBOMB

Who in their right mind is going to see a film with Tom Hanks where he is stranded in one location for the majority of the movie?

atari2600

so the guy CAN leave but stilll lives there? where does he live? does he eat in the food court every day? whats the point in being financial secure if you live in a freaking airport?