Super 8

The White Tuxedo wrote:

THE THING is still my personal favorite.

Carpenter reckons The Thing's commercial failure destroyed his mainstream career.

He very politely blames Spielberg for creating a public appetite for cuddly aliens. From the tea rooms of Mars to the toy factories of Uranus...

I want to see Wilford Brimley kill ET.

ambler wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

THE THING is still my personal favorite.

Carpenter reckons The Thing's commercial failure destroyed his mainstream career.

It simply came at the wrong time. It's a tightly made, resourceful, and genuinely soulful thriller, but by the early 80s, the public appetite demanded more optimistic fantasy fare.

That said, I think ET is undoubtedly superior, and more multifaceted film, on the whole, despite the mothership-load of merchandise it came with. It can firmly stand alone in the humanist tradition of John Ford and Elia Kazan without the hype.

While a higher budget usually does correlate with a less interesting film, it's not the be all and the end all. There are exceptions out there, and Steven Spielberg is one of them.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I want to see Wilford Brimley kill ET.

It's not the right thing to do, and it ain't the tasty way to do it.

I may give ET another spin one of these days. Doubt I'd enjoy it more than THE THING. Hope I can see the version with the guns, instead of the flashlights. The latter would iritate to no end.

Guns were replaced by walkie talkies, not flashlights.

I'm not crazy about E.T., I like it but I prefer some of Spielberg's other work.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Guns were replaced by walkie talkies, not flashlights.

I'm not crazy about E.T., I like it but I prefer some of Spielberg's other work.

Thought it might be something else. Still, it annoyed me.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Guns were replaced by walkie talkies, not flashlights.

I'm not crazy about E.T., I like it but I prefer some of Spielberg's other work.

Thought it might be something else. Still, it annoyed me.

I never watched the 2002 version entirely, just bits and pieces such as the walkie talkie bit.

At least the DVD came with both versions. I would have thought after that debacle that Spielberg would have no longer been interested in Lucasizing his flicks. And then I saw this clip:



STOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!

Why does ILM make everything blurry nowadays? Looking at that cliff, you'd guess David Tattersall shot it. There's a weird diffuse glow effect applied to it.

http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/06/05/whats-inside-the-mystery-box-of-jj-abrams-career

God has spoken:

http://www.nypress.com/article-22524-super-hate.html

Cheers for that, Makeshift.

Quote :

But what better way for Spielberg to prove that J.J. Abrams is small-time than to sponsor a close imitation by an inferior mogul? Super 8 requires that an important distinction must be made: By now it should be axiomatic that, minus a few exceptions (I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Back to the Future, the Transformers films), most of the movies Spielberg produces, without directing himself, simply stink.

Aside from the dubious TRANSFORMERS reference, that's one hell of an close. Quite simply, Abrams is an ersatz Spielberg (like Ron Howard before him) - just recycling his conventions, and turning Spielberg's open humanity into schmaltz - exactly what his detractors accuse him of. Just like with Tarantino and the French New Wave or Sergio Leone. He gets the conventions (through trite homages), but doesn't understand their conviction. Knowing what, but not how and why.

Saw "Super 8" last night and loved it. A very refreshing course in sci-fi, even if it hearkens back to a bygone era.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/09/super-8-jj-abrams-mashup

I'm hesitant about even giving this film a chance because J.J. Abrams is involved. The fact of the matter is that he's a bad director. I've also read that he misuses lens flares in this film; obviously, he isn't learning from his mistakes.

Certainly wouldn't surprise me if this was a superficial, "no thinking allowed" kind of film, though.

Makeshift Python wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Guns were replaced by walkie talkies, not flashlights.

I'm not crazy about E.T., I like it but I prefer some of Spielberg's other work.

Thought it might be something else. Still, it annoyed me.

I never watched the 2002 version entirely, just bits and pieces such as the walkie talkie bit.

At least the DVD came with both versions. I would have thought after that debacle that Spielberg would have no longer been interested in Lucasizing his flicks. And then I saw this clip:



STOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!

In a recent interview, Spielberg said:

Quote :

Steven Spielberg: ...(In the future) there’s going to be no more digital enhancements or digital additions to anything based on any film I direct. I’m not going to do any corrections digitally to even wires that show.

If 1941 comes on Blu-Ray I’m not going to go back and take the wires out because the Blu-Ray will bring the wires out that are guiding the airplane down Hollywood Blvd. At this point right now I think letting movies exist in the era, with all the flaws and all of the flourishes, is a wonderful way to mark time and mark history.

Here's the interview: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49897

To me, it seems like a turgid film. Starts off with kids making a film, then dogs go missing and army comes in all the while the dad likes his son's friends, and some supermarket clerk is having a bad day at work. It seems excessively convoluted.

Mr. Brown wrote:

In a recent interview, Spielberg said:

Quote :

Steven Spielberg: ...(In the future) there’s going to be no more digital enhancements or digital additions to anything based on any film I direct. I’m not going to do any corrections digitally to even wires that show.

If 1941 comes on Blu-Ray I’m not going to go back and take the wires out because the Blu-Ray will bring the wires out that are guiding the airplane down Hollywood Blvd. At this point right now I think letting movies exist in the era, with all the flaws and all of the flourishes, is a wonderful way to mark time and mark history.

Here's the interview: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49897

That's pleasant to hear. I guess the Indy digital effects will remain on TV broadcasting assuming he won't allow it shown on a blu-ray release. Not that I care too much, I'm fine with the 2003 DVD release.

Anyway, about SUPER 8. If it had one effect on me then it made me want to go back home and and pop in my blu-ray copy of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS. Better off watching something from a master than an amateur. It's not a bad flick, it's just average and a bit confused about what it wants to be and the ending doesn't deliver. The film drags at certain parts, way too focused on nostalgia and recreating a lot of 80s Amblin tropes instead of trying to tell a story.

One example is the title of the film: Super 8. Walking in you'd think that the super 8 film that shoots the scene of the crash might be pivotal to the plot. Instead it's the opposite. That roll of film adds nothing to the story. When they finally watch the characters play the film we and the characters themselves don't learn anything new.

And the ending wasn't very convincing and at times is too on the nose. Such as the necklace opening up to reveal a lingering shot pic of the kid and his mom. DID YOU GET THAT AUDIENCES? WAS IT NOT CLEAR? HE'S LETTING THE PAST GO! GET IT!?

Yeah, I did, but I didn't care much.

The flick only proves that while Abrams is obviously an admirer of film and such, he just lacks the skill. Just another amateur film geek who gets a big budget from studios.

That's funny that the name of the film ultimately has nothing to do with the film. I'd really expect the super 8 format to be such a larger part of the picture. There would have been plenty of room to fool around with some subtext regarding the way of celluloid film, too, as Armond White somewhat points out in his article.

Then again, I don't know why I'm acting as if I'd ever expect to find any sort of in-depth subtext in a J.J. Abrams film.

I get the impression that the film is mindless and sterile; just playing notes similar to Spielberg like a player piano. The Armond review just seems to back up that impression.

If that's what people want to see, fine. It doesn't look interesting to me.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I get the impression that the film is mindless and sterile; just playing notes similar to Spielberg like a player piano. The Armond review just seems to back up that impression.

I think a lot of Armond's reviews do a lot of reaching, but his review is pretty spot on. "Reheat" sums it up.

It would be nice to see more young filmmakers trying to emulate a few pre-JAWS/STAR WARS directors. Back when movies were boring.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

If that's what people want to see, fine.

Turns out that's not the case. It's opening day is well below expectations at the box office. I guess the hype was just among internet nerds.

Anything that hurt Abrams' chances at becoming the biggest director in Hollywood - or in ever making another film - makes me happy.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Anything to hurt Abrams chances at becoming the biggest director in Hollywood - or in ever making another film - makes me happy.

Pretty sad. It's his first non-previously established franchise flick and his name wasn't enough to get the kind of numbers many expected. I think he'll still be around for awhile, studios got too much invested in the guy. As long as he stays with franchise flicks he's not done with Hollywood.

Also, this means the biggest director in Hollywood is still Christopher Nolan. But that's kind of by default because directors aren't as famous today as they used to be.

Yuck.

He does make one point I agree with: often times when Hollywood makes a sequel, they fail to properly identify what endeared the audience to the original.