Taken? 470
jeepliberty writes "Was I the only one to feel like I was "taken" by the latest Spielberg mini-series? It concluded last night on the SciFi channel. It started out great. The first five episodes were excellent. Then like milk on the counter, it started going sour. My sister is a writer and after she sees a movie she always picks it apart for continuity, character development and plot. I always tell here "Get a life. It's just a movie." Well after I saw the 7th installment, I started picking up my sister's habits and began picking it apart. "Taken" seems to have taken a little bit from "Firestarter", "E.T.", "Sphere" and quite a few others."
Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems each movie gets a bit more out far-fetched and unbelievable with the years. He's even using the latest "fad" actors in his films rather than tried and true classic screensmen.
Anyone else think his time is over? I mean, A.I. was supposed to be a masterpiece, but all it was was simply two or three hours of some annoying "Sixth Sense" ghost boy trying to find his mom.
Take the Best Pieces..... (Score:3, Interesting)
This has been the strategy for many things in history including Linux. A little SysV, a little BSD, and the best user contributions and you have a suberb OS.
Taking the best elements of earlier inventions and creating something new using those elements will always be around. It's a simple yet effective recipe to build a better mousetrap.
I actually liked it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am actually currently watching the Taken marathon. I don't think it is his greatest work but it is definitly good. Entertaining for sure.
I guess I will be able to draw better conclusions once it's over. Currently they are in the early 80's (1980).
I think you guys look for way too much.
It would be less disappointing with no aliens... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:4, Interesting)
Take AI, for example. As Kubrick was doing it, it was supposedly to end with little robot boy "killing" himself - leaving the audience questioning this. Think about a robot suicide to get what Kurbrick wanted. Think everyone living happily ever after to get the Speilberg version. It's like Apocalypse Now vs MASH.
Reports of his "Death" are greatly exaggerated (Score:4, Interesting)
Are people saying that an older, highly acclaimed director with a lot of clout and past success can't make good movies? Look at Robert Altman.
Spielberg is 56 years old. He could be making movies for another 30 years, and who knows what he'll choose to do?!
At the moment, from what I gather, he is trying to ensure the profitability and stability of the brand new major studio he created, the first in many, many years. He seems to be having some success, especially in animated features, against the company that invented the genre.
Hollywood is nothing if not a breeding ground for surprises. We all know Minority Report could have been better--it wasn't the masterwork that Bladerunner was--but you have to give him credit for putting his considerable resources into a less-than-forgiving proposition.
If what we're talking about boils down to the difference between Minority Report and Bladerunner, then I think it's something both very small and very large. A little bit of inspiration goes a long way, you might say. Maybe the theme of Constitutional erosion wasn't as inspirational to him as the Holocaust or D-Day had been, but I have no doubt that he'll be truly inspired again, whether it's next year or in ten years.
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:1, Interesting)
He is easily the most over-rated director of all time. Even List was botched, and that was his attempt at a "serious" subject that he "believed in."
Yes, he can rope in the peons with pap, but that doesn't make him worth watching any more that all of Nsync's gold records makes them "artists". (Seriously, look at the Jones films again, and every other blockbuster he made since Jaws. Not one of them has any depth to it--it's all bubblegum, and not even particularly flavorful bubblegum at that.)
Taken came as no surprise to me. What little I saw of it was obvious X-Files ripoff without, amazingly but not unexpectedly, any of the nuance X-Files had in its heyday.
Taken indeed.
I agree, but to a point... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Flaw - possible spoilers (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure I'm not the only long-term sci-fi fan who reacts to the premise "the next stage of human evolution" with ennui and disinterest.
The lack of a compelling motivation for the aliens -- and just saying "it's beyond our understanding" is nothing more than a cop-out -- is the fatal flaw in Taken.
I liked the characterization -- particularly the character of Mary, one of the best cold-hearted bitches to come down the track in a while -- the extended story line, many (but not all) of the special effects, and the overall concept. However, the lack of any real conclusion spoiled the mix. Yes, I'm sorry the mother had to let go of the little girl, but that's hardly an emotional conclusion that fit the overall piece -- sort of like framing Romeo and Juliet in terms of Nurse's little girl growing up.
Sigh.
Julian May.
Alfred Bester.
Poul Anderson.
People who knew how to end a story.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:4, Interesting)
Great analysis. I also believe that A.I. is a vastly underrated and misunderstood movie.
So they did what the humans, in their arrogance, could not. They destroyed him.
This is not quite accurate. The humans did recognize that he was not capable of growing and/or learning, which is why they stated early on that these models, once imprinted, would have to be destroyed and couldn't be given to another owner. That's why the mother sent him off in the first place.
Other than that, I completely agree with you. That's the most interesting thing about the movie: it demonstrates that to be truly human requires all the negative traits, as well as the positive ones. They only built mecha with the positive traits, which meant they would never be fully human.
Re:My Impressions (Score:2, Interesting)
the centepede thing was shaped that way becasue that is how the nurons were made in teh aliens, it was an artificial receiver....the reason it made them all insane had something to do with what the burning physocist said and became a running theme, "all your memories and all your fears"...presumably becasue that is what Jake clark, allie and the alien twins could do, we are to assume that the nature of the antena is what gives the psycic powers to the little implant thingy.
as for the brothers in alaska....it was very X-files-y. however, it served an importent point...remember the conversation that Jake had with Owen in the car "I am not the only one that is importent to them"....think about how old those boys were...Jake was talking about them....they are another experiment in crossbreading, but they are a failure....they look awful, and they can not contol their powers. it is also the episode that the "torch" is passed from Own to eric. eric shows his terchorus side that he inherits from his father by leting his brother die, and allowing his father to die as well......Owen saw his death when Jake looked at him....he saw Eric standing over him, he knew Eric would betray him, that is why the note says "I was wrong about you" he thought his son did not have the kind of competativeness that was needed to achive greatness.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:4, Interesting)
Slashdot really needs a feature for sending private messages.
Re:The Flaw - possible spoilers (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, you're a behavioral biologist studying chimps and you notice that human females have lost estrus as a result of evolution, so you undertake a cross-species hybridization program to . .
Yeah. Right.
Now, if they needed to breed superior warriors to fight an enemy race . . .
"Taken" was actually really good (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw the promo for "Taken" on the USA Network (USA is affiliated/owns the SciFi Channel?) and I was a bit skeptical. Also, it seemed Spielberg was getting too much glory, as there were many many directors (one for each episode, I believe) who took part in the miniseries. So if you don't like this, it isn't entirly Spielberg's fault.
Anyways, I thought the miniseries was very good. Probably the best miniseries I've ever seen. And the best "Alien" story, in terms of accuracy and "it could of happened"-ness, as well.
The great thing about the miniseries was the theme of "Family" as it followed three families from the 1940's to today. They pulled it off quite well, as you could see traits of the characters which resembeled their parents/grandparents. And how they all intermeshed and met up again in the future.
The Government was portrayed quite badly, as offical governement workers often killed off innocent people to keep the secret. If the Government really did that, it is very dangerous. Here's a tip: If you ever find aliens/UFO's etc., call CNN or the Today show gang, not Uncle Sam. It reminds me of one of the few episodes of Stargate I've seen, where some guy says "It's almost worst to lie to your citizens than to commit murder".
The aliens were interesting as well. They did a good job of crafting them, but I believe they could of done better on the special effects. They certainly weren't up to par with the current movies in theatres, but around to where "Enterprise" is. The Alien ships were interesting, as it displayed what they could look like in the interior. The theory about them meshing together to create one big craft was interesting as well.
All in all, the people who did this miniseries did do their homework. As I reconized a lot of plot which was taken out of real life events. I also remember the crew mentioning that they intereviewed abductees and sifted through a large amount of documented events and theories before doing the show, which payed off IMO.
I would like to see a sequal, but I'd like Steven Spielberg also to do it. If it loses any of it's original imagineers, I think it would be very disapointing.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't believe David could have committed suicide. He wasn't programmed to. The fact that he was limited by his programming is sort of central to the whole movie. If he had been able to "turn himself off," then why couldn't he also have been able to stop loving Monica? The fact that David could never, ever transcend, could never become "a real boy," is critical to the story. His killing himself would have been an act of transcendence, and I think it would have taken away from the internal integrity of the story.
That's why I stick to the uber-mecha euthanasia interpretation.
(Do check out my latest journal entry for more on this subject. Plug, plug.)
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that when they first found David under the ice, one of the mecha did something to him. He placed his hand over David's forehead. At this point the movie cuts to an oversaturated scene set in David's house, where he talks to the Blue Fairy. "And what, after all this time, have you come to ask me?" she asks. "Please make me a real boy, so my Mommy will love me and let me stay with her," he says. "David, I will do anything that is possible," says the Blue Fairy, "but I cannot make you a real boy."
David then asks where he is. "We read your mind, and it's all here," says the Blue Fairy. "There's nothing too small that you didn't store for us to remember. We so want you to be happy. You are so important to us, David. You are unique in all the world."
So there's a really critical point here. Earlier, the mecha said, "This machine [meaning the amphibicopter] was trapped under the wreckage before the freezing. Therefore, these robots are originals. They knew living people." The mecha value David for his memories. They have a very selfish reason to keep him around. Humans in the same situation would have kept David alive simply for his archaeological value. The mecha, however, make a different choice.
Then David asks, "Will Mommy be coming home soon?" The Blue Fairy replies, "David, she can never come home because 2,000 years have passed, and she is no longer living." That's when Teddy shows the hairs to the David. David holds the hairs out to the Blue Fairy and says, forcefully, "Now you can bring her back, can't you." The movie cuts to a shot of the mecha narrator, who pauses for the briefest of moments. In a resigned voice, he says, "Give him what he wants." It is in this moment that the narrator has accepted that David can never be happy as long as he exists. Programmed only to love, and only to love Monica, any continued existence for him would be filled with misery. The narrator then make the only truly selfless and compassionate choice of any character in the movie: to give David the illusion of a day with his mother, and then to end him.
Hair-- not hair follicles, but just hair-- has no DNA in it. It would not be possible to reconstruct a person in any physical sense from just cut hair. But the mecha had David's memories-- "There's nothing too small that you didn't store for us to remember"-- and could give him peace. If the illusion had lasted for more than a single day, David might have begun to doubt. So the mecha limited the time arbitrarily, and at the end of that one day, they euthanized David.
This may seem like Trekkie-style technical bickering, but why wouldn't the advanced mecha's just upgrade him
Because the fundamental conceit of the film is that David cannot transcend himself. Human beings can transcend: they can change, grow, evolve. But David, as a robot, could have no character arc. Bolting on an upgrade would have been as cheap an ending as turning David into a real boy would have been.
For some reason I found ET uplifiting and touching and AI remarkably sad.
AI was remarkably sad. A younger filmmaker, I think, couldn't have made that movie. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, AI is definitely from Spielberg's post-Schindler period.
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
What are you talking about?
He's even using the latest "fad" actors in his films rather than tried and true classic screensmen.
I'm not sure about other people, but I for one am sick of seeing the same damn actors in every single freaking movie. I mean, once I've seen Nicolas Cage in Honeymoon in Vegas, The Rock, Con Air, Face/Off, City of Angels, Snake Eyes, 8MM, Gone in Sixty Seconds, and then The Family Man... then I for sure as hell do not want to see him in some movie like Windtalkers. The movie just loses all meaning because of some over used main character. After you've seen them so many times in so many different rolls (although Cage typically plays somewhat hardened character rolls, but others play rolls that vary extremely from movie to movie), you lose any feeling for any character they play because of preemptive thoughts of their character based on rolls played in previous movies. There are very few true classic screensman out there who look good in all of their rolls - whether that is due to their acting ability to make your perceive their character in a certain way no matter what you think beforehand, or because they simple play the same types of rolls over and over (think Steven Seagal, although his acting isn't the greatest, heh). I love seeing new faces in movies, as long as they can act. A new face that can't act isn't much better than an overused face that has some acting ability. But, a new face that can act is better than 99% of the overused faces out there.
It was the "Human" story. (Score:1, Interesting)
We didn't. What we got was a story of the human will, desire and endurance. We saw how the writers imagined how people of different times would react to the aliens. We saw things that we as a society believe to be our strengths. We didn't give up and we fought to the end. The aliens were not the point of these movies, just a means of getting the point accross about how strong we are and that there are some questions we ask ourselves that may never be answered.
What I liked was that story was so large and invloved so many people. What I didn't like was tha it somewhat uninspired and didn't really put any really new ideas out there. It was pretty cool to show how the government dealt with the situation. And Chet (MadHeadRoom's character) was great and I think he added the most to the series. He was pure geek.
All in all it was a solid mini-series. I just don't think it is getting the respect it should because we wanted Aliens meets the Matrix and we got more of a "Great Expectations".
- "Who would have thought I would end up being a humanitarian?" - Chet
Awesome movies we'll never see... (Score:2, Interesting)
How about something from Gibson? Count Zero, perhaps?
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, A.I. is a failure. It's slow. It's "out there". It's hard to believe. The story is self-indulgent, and the ending is ambiguous. It sounds like...a Kubrik movie!
I, yes, work in the industry. It's true that Spielberg, like many producers, has his share of failures. But he is, matter of fact, extremely involved in his projects. He's the hardest working guy out there, a force of nature. But with all the failures, what's made Spielberg one of the most powerful when in the business, is his unequalled success rate. Look up his producing credits on IMDB. "Unequalled success" isn't just an figure of speech with him. It's a fact.
OK. I have no idea how good Taken is, because I've not had time to watch it, but I wanted to deflate these weird false assumptions people have about Spielberg. It's like, "Spielberg ruined what would otherwise have been a Kubrick masterpiece, like Eyes Wide Shut," or, "Taken is bad because of Spielberg, but he had nothing to do with it." What a load.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Interesting)
David could never sleep.
I honestly can't remember if the narrator indicated that David dies or not.
The metaphor is clear. The narrator says that Monica was fast asleep, more than asleep, for if he should shake her she would never rouse. Then he says that David went to sleep, too. Given the fact that David states without qualification that he can never go to sleep, the meaning is clear.
The message wasn't so cryptic, it was quite simple- the first AI with real emotions will undoubtedly suffer in a world of humans that don't accept their validity.
I don't think so. The theme is much bigger than that. The theme is laid out in the very first scene of the movie: "In the beginning, didn't God create Adam to love Him?" The theme is the tragedy of hubris.