Spielberg ?

As it's Star Wars, they'd switch off. They switch off when it's Steven Spielberg, too. He isn't loved by critics at all. Infact, his films are just as badly panned as George Lucas's are.

 

Hardly, Oakessteve. When was the last time you saw editorials (editorials!) attacking Spielberg's films? When was the last time you saw anywhere near the vicious hatred toward one of Spielberg's films as is regularly shown toward Lucas's? When was the last time you saw critics so obsessed with hatred of Spielberg that they make it a point to slam one of his movies even in reviews of totally unrelated movies?

Critics adore Spielberg. Aside from the odd blatant turkey like "Hook," they fawn all over him, and forgive or even praise him for the same stuff they crucify Lucas for (i.e., they forgave the crappy dialogue and lack of plot in "Jurassic Park" because the FX were so dazzling).

 

It's interesting--and more than a little depressing--that so many people see the need to bolster their favorite director's credentials by slamming another. They're both fantastic directors who've done great work and poor work.

BTW, as far as e. mail goes, that reminds me of a story a friend of mine who was James Cameron's personal assistant told me: Back before TITANIC went into production, he had to show Cameron how to open his e. mail. Cameron blew a fit when he realized it took more than two steps. He just kept screaming, "I want to do it in two steps or I won't do it!!!" Yes, he apparently was literally screaming at the top of his lungs. And Cameron's suppose to be some technical genius constantly pushing the envelope.

Back on topic...

"When was the last time you saw editorials (editorials!) attacking Spielberg's films? When was the last time you saw anywhere near the vicious hatred toward one of Spielberg's films as is regularly shown toward Lucas's? "

Shelley, Shelley, Shelley...

Did you not read some of the vicious reviews of A.I.? That nudnik Jeffrey Welles picked it as the worst film of the year. I don't recall AMISTAD being particularly well received. Did it even get a wide release? THE LOST WORLD was given a big thumbs down by Ebert and Siskel, RIP.

Certainly, Lucas has been the lightning rod for some of the most negative comments a film critic can dish out. But I don't think Spielberg's been immune to them. As MadMardigan said earlier, Spielberg received much of the same notices that Lucas gets on a regular basis now. The difference is that Spielberg matured into telling different stories. He occasionally flops back to the "entertainment" arena, but seems more inclined to challenge himself. Perhaps when he's done with Ep 3 Lucas will, too. He's said he'd like to do more experimental films. In some way, as much as people enjoy STAR WARS, I think it's become quite an albatross around Lucas's neck. In Coppola's words, "STAR WARS robbed the world of one of our finest directors."

 

Well, maybe the media reaction to Steven Spielberg in England is different from what it is in America, but several papers, such as the Guardian, do tend to bash him for no good reason at all. In a review of Harry Potter, for some reason they took the opportunity to bash Steven Spielberg. Same thing with Men in Black. But trust me, Steven Spielberg's films are just as badly bashed as George's are. This is the one subject I know anything about on.

 

i agree. there are some beautiful shots of scenery on naboo. the falls before the wedding..

 

Shelley said, MadMartigan, but he does spend time with his scripts and give direction to his actors. Seems to me that since you hate the end result, you assume it's because Lucas spends no time on the scripts and ignores the actors.

But if you already enjoyed the film wouldn't you like it even better if he spent even more time with the scripts and gave even more direction to his actors.

I look at it like this analogy. For you the PT is the world's greatest steak. But wouldn't it be even better with say some mashed potatoes and garlic bread. Well if your answer is yes then mashed potatoes=more time on script and garlic bread=more direction for actors.

 

But you can overdirect and such.

 

Did you not read some of the vicious reviews of A.I.? That nudnik Jeffrey Welles

Oh, him again. He hates everything, so it's no surprise. Did he write several vicious articles about Spielberg too, the way he did Lucas? Did Salon.com? How many newspapers put out editorials slamming Spielberg?

picked it as the worst film of the year.

E! Online called TPM the worst sequel ever made. I've seen more than one critic call it the worst movie ever made. I saw many a critic who slobbered over the FX of "Jurassic Park" and gave it high marks because of that slam TPM for being all FX and no story. (Never mind that the FX in "Jurassic Park" were made by ILM--in JP they were "breathtaking" and in TPM they were "shoddy.")

I don't recall AMISTAD being particularly well received.

There's a huge difference between "not very well received" and vicious slamming--and as if vicious reviews weren't enough, vicious editorials have been written as well about AOTC.

Certainly, Lucas has been the lightning rod for some of the most negative comments a film critic can dish out. But I don't think Spielberg's been immune to them.

He has received negative notices. But not nearly to the extent that Lucas has--either by critics or by "fans."

As MadMardigan said earlier, Spielberg received much of the same notices that Lucas gets on a regular basis now. The difference is that Spielberg matured into telling different stories. He occasionally flops back to the "entertainment" arena, but seems more inclined to challenge himself.

I don't really call it "maturing into telling different stories," I call it "begging for Oscars." Just because something is "serious" doesn't mean it's more "mature."

Perhaps when he's done with Ep 3 Lucas will, too. He's said he'd like to do more experimental films. In some way, as much as people enjoy STAR WARS, I think it's become quite an albatross around Lucas's neck. In Coppola's words, "STAR WARS robbed the world of one of our finest directors."

And that's Coppola's opinion. I wouldn't blame Lucas one bit if he'd decided not to make the PT, especially considering the vitriol that is piled on him by whiny, ungrateful fans as well as critics. But in his words, he tells stories because he has to. While he may have pretended he could leave the stories of Episodes I - III untold, in the end, he had to tell them. You could call SW his albatross, or you could call it his destiny. IMO, it's simplistic to call it one or the other.

 

But if you already enjoyed the film wouldn't you like it even better if he spent even more time with the scripts and gave even more direction to his actors.

Probably. I like it fine the way it is, but IMO Lucas did err by making TPM his first time directing a full-length movie in 20 years. (He did direct two of the scenes in ROTJ.) I think his direction was good, but it would have been better had be gotten back into practice by, say, directing a couple of small films prior to taking the helm for TPM.

I look at it like this analogy. For you the PT is the world's greatest steak. But wouldn't it be even better with say some mashed potatoes and garlic bread. Well if your answer is yes then mashed potatoes=more time on script and garlic bread=more direction for actors.

Hey, no fair using food analogies when I'm trying to lose weight!

I see your point, and I do agree with you. I guess where we part company is that I think Lucas's direction of TPM could have been better although it was already good, whereas you think it was bad and should have been better.

 

I don't really call it "maturing into telling different stories," I call it "begging for Oscars.

I think it would be awesome if Lucas went "begging for Oscars" with Star Wars. Why not? The thematic depth is there in the story. It would have made the films even better. And the whole debate with that other movie about a ring would be moot.

 

The whole debate about that movie with a ring is moot, because I consider FOTR to be an inferior movie to either TPM or AOTC.

As for Lucas begging for Oscars, I'm glad he doesn't.

 

As far as direction for actors go Lucas seems to give a lot to those who want a lot. Or maybe he just ignored Natalie Portman on the set of AOTC. Doubtful because she said she was having more fun on this one than Ep2.

I think MadMardigan has a point though. About the meat and potatoes analogy anyway.

 

I don't think Steven Spielberg was begging for Oscars at all, but you can't watch Schindler's List, and deny it didn't deserve the awards it got, I don't think. And it seems that people have conviently forgotten the point I made about Steven being nominated as best director, or the film itself for best picture, and being ignored until about 1993, but there you go. As I said before, George Lucas is a good director, but in my mind, he's not as good as Steven Spielberg. But very few American directors are.

 

In Coppola's words, "STAR WARS robbed the world of one of our finest directors."

Just because Lucas didn't make anything super thought provoking doesn't give Coppola any right to say that about another director.

 

Just because Lucas didn't make anything super thought provoking doesn't give Coppola any right to say that about another director.

Especially after dreck like Jack. Copolla [image=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terryandjean/13/Pix/tardo2.jpg] for some of the worst squandering of talent.

 

poor poor george lucas.

why do you "think" the critics bash him unfairly?

the usual response is jealousy of his success.

how come james cameron and steven soderburgh and steven spielberg arent bashed?

oh i know... because they make better movies.

please i would love to hear how and why george lucas is picked on unfairly. people who can see things from the outside, with some shred of objectivity know that the negative assessments of TPM and AOTC were fair and accurate.

please tell me about how poor widdle george lucas is being picked on.

i need a good laugh.

also if AOTC is so friggin great, why is it way down at the bottom of the list on IMDBs top 250 films of all time... there are over 200 movies considered better, and thats from a fairly ramdom sampling of viewers.

directing is not the only thing that is wrong with epis 1&2... but its a start.

 

I think Coppola is a great director himself. BUT, see, film is art.

And art comes in many different forms.

You have movies that are for entertainment, movies that are for brain teasing, and movies that are for education.

Coppola's chosen art form is brain teasing/thought. Lucas' chosen art form is entertainment.

And frankly, I'd LOVE to see how Coppola handles the form of art Lucas chose.

Until Coppola makes a film for pure entertainment, the gifted prick shouldn't blurt out nonsense like that.

 

also if AOTC is so friggin great, why is it way down at the bottom of the list on IMDBs top 250 films of all time

That is the most ignorant statement Ive yet to hear.

No, wait.

George Lucas is racist

THAT'S the most ignorant, but you sir came close.

 

Hmm, not sure why bashers continue to do this, do they not have another purpose? To sign up just to bash? Personally, I do not understand but to each his own.

Just to point out one thing, DrEvazan, there have been many thousands of movies. Many known movies are not on that list. How is it bad for Attack of the Clones to be one of the 250 best movies of all time?

Also, it hasn't been out that long!

Why am I even bothering?

 

"I wouldn't blame Lucas one bit if he'd decided not to make the PT, especially considering the vitriol that is piled on him by whiny, ungrateful fans as well as critics"

Shelley,

Are you Lucas's love child?

As the last guy said: Poor little Georgie doesn't get enough love. That may not be what you're trying to say, Shelley, but it's how you're coming off. Lucas gets plenty of respect from his peers, his employees, and his fans. If a few critics don't hop on the bandwagon, then so what? Your comments about what a victim he is comes across as pandering. And, for the record, Lucas was one of the youngest recipients of the Irving J. Thalberg Award from the Academy, so it's not like poor little Georgie has cooties and nobody wants to talk to him. (BTW, yes, THAT Jeffrey Wells, the biggest nudnik on the planet. He slammed A.I. mercilessly, then turned his attention to, in his words, the "Bloated One", George Lucas. I think he's getting ready to do a number on Scorsese next)

MadMardigan:

Yes, Coppola has thrown away his talent of late. But can you deny this is the man who made GODFATHER 1,2, THE CONVERSATION, and APOCALYPSE NOW, produced THX 1138 and AMERICAN GRAFFITI; and, arguably, TUCKER and DRACULA. If he does nothing else again, I think his reputation is still above reproach. Fanboys seem to forget history and go into this "what have you done for me lately" mode, which is a little selfish.

"Until Coppola makes a film for pure entertainment, the gifted prick shouldn't blurt out nonsense like that"

Pooja,

Are you implying CAPTAIN EO wasn't entertaining? Oh wait...Lucas was involved with that, too.

"Just because Lucas didn't make anything super thought provoking doesn't give Coppola any right to say that about another director"

Except that it's a free country and Coppola has the right to say anything he wants...like you and I.

 

also if AOTC is so friggin great, why is it way down at the bottom of the list on IMDBs top 250 films of all time

Food for thought, folks.

 

"Until Coppola makes a film for pure entertainment, the gifted prick shouldn't blurt out nonsense like that"

Pooja,

Are you implying CAPTAIN EO wasn't entertaining?

Yes. It's an opinion.

 

Are you Lucas's love child?

Oh please, Bresson. Can't you find some new material?

I thought we were having a nice discussion, and then you have to deliberately try to rile me.

As the last guy said: Poor little Georgie doesn't get enough love. That may not be what you're trying to say, Shelley, but it's how you're coming off.

Would you quit with the patronizing, smirky tone, please? You come across as a smug-faced, pseudo-world-weary know it all.

Lucas gets plenty of respect from his peers, his employees, and his fans.

I agree with peers and employees, but I'm not so sure about fans.

If a few critics don't hop on the bandwagon, then so what? Your comments about what a victim he is

I don't think he's a victim. For all the nastiness directed at him, he doesn't act like a victim.

comes across as pandering.

I get defensive, probably overly so. But I'm not pandering. In all likelihood Lucas neither knows nor cares what anyone on this board says.

And, for the record, Lucas was one of the youngest recipients of the Irving J. Thalberg Award from the Academy,

Spielberg being another.

so it's not like poor little Georgie has cooties and nobody wants to talk to him.

Then why did you turn around and get all "poor Steven" on me?

(BTW, yes, THAT Jeffrey Wells, the biggest nudnik on the planet. He slammed A.I. mercilessly, then turned his attention to, in his words, the "Bloated One", George Lucas. I think he's getting ready to do a number on Scorsese next)

I wouldn't doubt it. He hates everything.

 

I really like it how the concept of "movies" has degraded over the years. It's not like we go to the theater to be entertained anymore. It's ALL about acting and dialogue. Sure, it's a good plus to a movie, but honestly, if there is a good story and cool things going on, frankly, I could care LESS about acting and dialogue.

But NO. Heck, who cares if Episode III tells a good story, I just hope Lucas gets his crap together with perfect acting and dialogue.

 

"Then why did you turn around and get all "poor Steven" on me"

Me? When did I say "poor Steven"? Hmmm....


"I wouldn't doubt it. He hates everything."

Shelley,
If you want a laugh, go back to his archives to last Christmas, when he dissed Wes Anderson and Owen Wilson. For what? Apparently, when those two filmmakers first hit town, Jeffrey Wells befriended them (that's his version) and, in his accounting, when Wes and Owen got big, they refused to go out to lunch with him again. It's pretty funny how petty he sounds. I actually wrote to him and asked him if he would take it easy on Lucas if he took Wells out to lunch and paid for it. Yes....Welles got pretty steamed.

"Would you quit with the patronizing, smirky tone, please? You come across as a smug-faced, pseudo-world-weary know it all. "

Thank you. You just described me and Indiana Jones.


"Are you implying CAPTAIN EO wasn't entertaining?

Yes. It's an opinion. "

Pooja, I was being sarcastic.

"I really like it how the concept of "movies" has degraded over the years. It's not like we go to the theater to be entertained anymore. It's ALL about acting and dialogue"

Good acting and dialogue may not guarantee entertainment, but bad acting and dialogue certainly guarantees boredom.