I'm pretty sure that you don't mean to say that Spielberg's 30+ years of an Oscar-winning, genre'-redefining, record-breaking career is more due to luck than the guy's skills . . . do you?
Grindhouse.....split
- Thread starter scar this armada
- Start date
Capt Quirk
Veteran
You want to talk about miscasting? What about Burton casting Michael Keaton as Batman? Amazingly enough, it worked.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Yeah ............
WTF :kali: :shocked: :happy: :undecided
Keaton is a stud; best Batman yet.
DeSica
Well-known member
You don't really think that my post intended to say that, do you?
Does everyone try and extract the most negative things from posts on here, or just mods? The pseudo-statement question is kind of insulting...like me saying "let me dumb it down for you guys who don't read for comprehension well..."
What I was saying is that a few of his great works might not have turned out nearly as well as they did if not for a bit of good fortune. I don't recall saying his career has been based on luck, or making any implication that he isn't talented.
I think I started the post saying he was indeed very talented, and that he himself thought it was a lucky thing the shark malfunctioned as it did, He has indicated it made for a more eerie feel and greater payoff when you only catch glimpses of the fin or whatever for most of the film, and then finally do see the large portion of the shark near the end. If you don't care for his opinion on the matter, take it up with him.
What if the mechanical shark had worked better, and been used more in the frinal cut? It may have come off as more of a gimmick film, or just cheesy, and not done the box office it did. Don't forget he was close to being taken of the project. His stellar rise might have been delayed a bit, given the cost over run of the production, if the film flopped. His next projects may not have been backed with as much enthusiasm. He still would have been successful because he's the real deal, but it might have taken longer.
Jurassic Park wouldnot have been as impressive as it was if they had to use Go Motion, and it probably wouldn't have made as much money. Don't think so? Pitch a film about giant lizards or monkeys or whatever to a studio, and tell them you want to use Go Motion...or plastercine and an old Bell and Howell 16mm wind up camera. See how many millions they throw at you. Get in a debate about the film, and take the position that it was great, but would have been better if Ray Harryhausen had done the dinosaur stuff instead of the CGI team.
There is no way you're going to convince me that Schindler's List would have turned out just as great with Alan Thicke in the lead. Hollywood was already telling Spielberg not to make the film, as it was too much of a bring down, but he did it anyway, and that is a good thing. Wanting Thicke...not so much.
Israel should honor Thicke for passing on the role in a similar way they did Schindler for doing his great deeds...or at leasts cineastes should.
In those three instances, I think Spielberg did get a bit of luck that helped make a big difference in the end. I didn't say his career was a fluke, or anything vaguely resembling that.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Go's with the job sometimes
But I don't think Dave was being negative; he's simply asking a question
"I'm pretty sure that you don't mean to say ..."
What's with the MOD angst lately ?
DeSica
Well-known member
Go's with the job sometimes
But I don't think Dave was being negative; he's simply asking a question
"I'm pretty sure that you don't mean to say ..."
What's with the MOD angst lately ?
No angst...just the two people who posted as thinking I might have been saying his 30 year career was more luck than skill were both mods. I honestly don't see how one could get that impression from my original post, but you never know what runs through peoples minds.
Simply asking a question? Read his post again...it's in the same vein as "I'm pretty sure you're really not as big of a douchebag as you seem to be right now...are you?"
Not that I think he was calling me a douchebag...or that I think he is one for making his post.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Well
Dave's a grouchy bastard anyways.
Dave's a grouchy bastard anyways.
No TV no beer make Homer go crazy.
DeSica, it actually was a question, because your post could well be read to chalking Spielberg's career (or a significant chunk of it) up to a lot of luck.
My point was, if Spielberg wanted Thicke, he had his reasons, and he would have made a great movie out of it with Thicke. And, things being as they are, all other things being equal, given the subject matter of the film, it would have been as acclaimed. Spielberg is a master of the craft, and if certain things hadn't broken his way, he still would have made great films. They'd be different, sure, but different doesn't mean the same as "not as good."
And who knows? Maybe Thicke would have had audiences swooning, under Spielberg's direction. Spielberg got a better-than-average performance out of Neeson, after all, who was well-regarded in smallish circles (what was his biggest role at that time? Darkman?), but was hardly anyone's darling at the time.
DeSica, it actually was a question, because your post could well be read to chalking Spielberg's career (or a significant chunk of it) up to a lot of luck.
My point was, if Spielberg wanted Thicke, he had his reasons, and he would have made a great movie out of it with Thicke. And, things being as they are, all other things being equal, given the subject matter of the film, it would have been as acclaimed. Spielberg is a master of the craft, and if certain things hadn't broken his way, he still would have made great films. They'd be different, sure, but different doesn't mean the same as "not as good."
And who knows? Maybe Thicke would have had audiences swooning, under Spielberg's direction. Spielberg got a better-than-average performance out of Neeson, after all, who was well-regarded in smallish circles (what was his biggest role at that time? Darkman?), but was hardly anyone's darling at the time.
DeSica
Well-known member
Three films is hardly a significant portion of his career...and your use of easily is itself used too easily. I said the guy is a very good director, but he does get lucky sometimes...not most of the time, or all of the time...sometimes.
Every director does, I'm sure.
The man may be a great director, but he isn't flawless....so I don't think the film would have been as good with Thicke. Once you admit the guy can make a mistake, then you can see how maybe Thicke could have proved a less than great casting decision.
Nevermind theatre and television work...by the time he got Schindler's List, Neeson had already had two dozen or more roles of various sizes in films like Excalibur, The Bounty, The Misson and Husbands And Wives.
Thicke had written a bunch of TV theme songs (Facts Of Life, Different Strokes), hosted a cheesy Canadian talk show and starred on Growing Pains...a show more famous for having employed Leonardo DiCaprio for 12 minutes than anything else.
You remind me of an SCTV sketch, where Martin short was spoofing the erudite Brian Linehan and Dave Thomas was playing Bob Hope. When 'Brock' Linehan questions Hope about his wanting to remake The Greatest Story Ever Told, and who he would cast as Jesus Christ, Hope answers something like...
"Gil Gerrard, he's a good looking guy...you can't have an ugly guy playing the Lord."
Now you're just getting into nonsense.
When did I say he was incapable of making a mistake? I've seen "Temple of Doom." I've seen "Always." I've seen "Hook." I've seen the guns digitally taken out of "E.T."
I've never seen a casting mistake, though, and if you think either Spielberg's or my thought process is anything like that SCTV sketch, then I don't know what else to say -- but it might shed some light on why I could have read your initial statement as negative, no?
When did I say he was incapable of making a mistake? I've seen "Temple of Doom." I've seen "Always." I've seen "Hook." I've seen the guns digitally taken out of "E.T."
I've never seen a casting mistake, though, and if you think either Spielberg's or my thought process is anything like that SCTV sketch, then I don't know what else to say -- but it might shed some light on why I could have read your initial statement as negative, no?
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
That is one thing I can concur with in Spielbergs films; I cannot for once second question any role he has ever cast.
Ted Spencer
Veteran
Neeson did a tremendous job on 'Schindler' as he's done on just about everything I've seen him in, including Star Wars EpI, even with Lucas's famously stiff dialog writing.
But in fairness ot Thicke, let's at least allow the possibility that Spielberg could have gotten a great performance out of him as well. I'm not a fan of his, but you never know what might have been...
But in fairness ot Thicke, let's at least allow the possibility that Spielberg could have gotten a great performance out of him as well. I'm not a fan of his, but you never know what might have been...
DeSica
Well-known member
I don't see how...but your initial post was nonsense, yet I'm sure you find it quite incisive.
Woah...did I read you wrong? Ooops...sorry. You said he was incapable of making a mistake right around where I said his career was luck...which is to say, never. Saying Thicke must have been good choice because Spielberg made it is much less a strecth to you finding him infallible than my saying he was lucky a couple of times being turned into I think his whole career is luck.
If you think Thicke would not have been a mistake in that role, fine. It's your opinion. The reason you gave for it was that if Spielberg wanted him, it must have been for a good reason, or something to that effect.
I think if Spielberg wanted him, it might have been huge mistake, whatever the reason. Luckily, he passed, and Neeson did a good job. A great job. I do agree that Spielberg woul dhave insights we don't when considering cast. I'm sure he didn't think, as you do, that Neeson had done little more than Darkman when he sought him out for the role. You're right to leave some of the thinking to others, and i can see why you do it.
For the record, I wasn't comparing his thought process to an SCTV sketch...just yours, in relation to this instance...just like I wasn't talking about most of his work, but only 3 isolated instances.
I can't see how you would have read it as negative, since the first thing I said about the guy was positive, and I only pointed out three films, one of which he admitted to getting lucky on himself. I can see how you couched a jab within a seemingly innocent question.
You can find what you like in a post...delete, move, whatever...but you're never going to convince me that Alan Thicke would have been great in Schindler's List, or that somehow my post implied one of our greatest filmmaker's entire career was more luck than anything else.
By the way...are you saying you do want an ugly guy playing The Lord? Just asking...
Look . . .
I questioned your statement, and looking back on it now, it still looks to me like it could be read either way.
But while questioning your statement, I still regarded you with respect and kept the argument above board and on the merits -- not to mention accepted you at your word when you said you didn't mean what I was asking. If you'll notice, I didn't question whether you had said anything ELSE you didn't say, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Don't make this personal. We disagree; let it go.
I questioned your statement, and looking back on it now, it still looks to me like it could be read either way.
But while questioning your statement, I still regarded you with respect and kept the argument above board and on the merits -- not to mention accepted you at your word when you said you didn't mean what I was asking. If you'll notice, I didn't question whether you had said anything ELSE you didn't say, so I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Don't make this personal. We disagree; let it go.
If RR wanted to make a zombie movie for awhile he just did it up good! Personally, i find the "zombie genre" to be a bit, uh, "done". All you can really do is add some cute/funny dialog and a few gags. He kept it entertaining.
I much preferred "Death Proof" but I think Kurt R is a good actor and I liked the pacing.
Sorry for stepping into the Speilberg love-fest ;-) just kidding guys!
I much preferred "Death Proof" but I think Kurt R is a good actor and I liked the pacing.
Sorry for stepping into the Speilberg love-fest ;-) just kidding guys!
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
The zombie genre can never die akajack.
Get it ? 'never die?'
Get it ? 'never die?'
DeSica
Well-known member
Never took it personally, and veiled condescension is not a big deal either...I enjoy trading the occasional cheap shot, as long as the other person can handle taking as well as giving.
I know we disagree...and I'll let it go. No problem.
As for zombie stuff...just as someone had mentioned about 30 Days Of Night having too much posturing and not enough horror in another thread, you have to remeber that these genres run in cycles. I'm no fan of horror, but I do notice trends in the genre, or even the sub-genres.
The 60's and 70's had all kinds of Dracula films, and then that got old...fast. Every Dracula angle was done, so they cool off on that stuff, and then they revisit it years later, and try to give it a different angle.
Zombie films are no different. You have the core element that you need to satisfy the zombie fans, but then you need an angle to draw in more mainstream viewers. Some of the stuff works, until it gets too weird, so then they go back to more conventional fare.
Wasn't Fido supposed to be a really unconventional zombie film? Did it work more as a comedy or zombie flick?
DarkMatter
Veteran
I bought Wolf Creek in a two disc set at Walmart and got Planet Terror free. Hellava deal!