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.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2, Offtopic)
It was vintage Kubrik. It would have been a better film if it had ended 30 minutes earlier. He never could end a movie!
We meet an alien race that is smart enough to figure out how to resurrect the dead, but isn't quite smart enough to figure out how to do it for more than one day. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard.
Here's the ending I proposed: Next to last shot - aliens flying over the frozen Manhattan. Last shot - cyberboy frozen in the block of ice staring at the blue fairy. Credits. Much better ending.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:5, Informative)
It's ridiculous because you completely misunderstood it. They weren't aliens. They were highly sophisticated mecha. Humans became extinct in the 2,000 year interval, but mecha survived and evolved by reproducing themselves. The "aliens" you see are the end result of 2,000 years of mecha evolution.
And they didn't resurrect the dead. They initially told David that they would be unable to resurrect his mother because they lacked her DNA, but when Teddy presented the hairs, they had to improvise. "Give him what he wants," said the narrator. They created, out of David's memories, an image of his mother, and let him interact with her for one day. Why only one day? Because they wanted to give David a sense of peace before euthanizing him.
See, the key to understanding this movie is to know that the human characters were all selfish and cruel-- intentionally or otherwise-- and that the mecha characters were all innocent and pure. David, especially, had to be innocent; he was programmed to be. The uber-mecha were the culmination of this: they were supremely innocent, supremely kind, supremely compassionate. When they found this primitive mecha under the ice, they recognized him for what he was. They knew that he was capable of feeling, but not of learning or growing. So they did what the humans, in their arrogance, could not. They destroyed him.
Last shot - cyberboy frozen in the block of ice staring at the blue fairy. Credits. Much better ending.
Sorry, but I disagree. The existing ending is overwhelmingly powerful, if one understands it.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2)
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2)
Interesting how on Slashdot most people feel compelled to parrot what they perceive as the "common wisdom", without investing a second of their time in forming their own (supposedly intelligent) opinion.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting how on Slashdot most people feel compelled to parrot what they perceive as the "common wisdom", without investing a second of their time in forming their own (supposedly intelligent) opinion.
</complaint>
<meta-complaint>
also interesting is how people feel compelled to call someone a parrot for agreeing with the majority
</meta-complaint>
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:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, something else I forgot to mention. It's arguable whether at the end of the uber-mechas destroyed him, or whether he simply committed suicide by going to "sleep". The latter might be more likely since he appeared to voluntarily close his eyes. Of course, the uber-mechas may have known that by fulfilling his quest, that would cause him to turn off.
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:2)
I have been wearly of closed minded people not seeing the ending for what it is. The ending made you think, if it weren't there and if David was left in the water, then the ending and the feeling you have after watching it would of been very empty.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2)
If there's a time on every project schedule to shoot the engineer, and a time on every movie schedule to shoot the director, there was DEFINITELY an overlooked time on AI at which the VFX lead should have been shot. Those future-mecha models made Jar Jar Binks look like something from a lost da Vinci sketch. My opinion of the film improved immeasurably when someone clued me in that the "aliens" were descendents of the mecha.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:4, Interesting)
Slashdot really needs a feature for sending private messages.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2)
Oh, that's no crime. Hardly anybody understands 2001, right? Besides, a teacher of mine once said, "Great art is always subject to a variety of interpretations."
(I wrote more about this in my journal. Check it out, won't you?)
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Insightful)
"This machine was trapped under the wreckage before the freezing. Therefore these robots are originals. They knew living people."
Same reason we excavate: to learn about the past. Records, even when they exist, can be incomplete. Mecha knowledge of the old cities was sketchy even in David's time-- remember Gigolo Joe's comment about "Man-hattan?"-- and would certainly not have been filled in any during the intervening years.
Re:It WAS ressurection for a DAY (Score:2)
No, that doesn't add up. The person we see in Act III is only vaguely reminiscent of the person we see in Act I. It's pretty clear that the Act III Monica is just the product of David's memories and hopes.
Remember, Act I Monica is no stranger to hysterics. Awakening in her house with no memory of how she got there and no trace of her real son or her husband would have sent her over the edge. The speech by the narrator to David is just a polite fiction, just as a parent would tell a child that the presents under the tree came from Santa Claus, or that a dead pet had gone to doggie Heaven.
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.
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.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2)
I don't know about that. Try reading this [slashdot.org] for my opinion on the whole matter.
Whats wrong with steve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is what I think is wrong with speilberg and lucas ... They are candles who have burned too brightly for too long, and they are simply extinguishing. I'm not going to talk about "selling out" because that's cliché, but its clear they lost their passion long ago.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Insightful)
The acting was phenomenal, I thought. Th little girl was incredible. It was all put together fairly well, and was a class act. It doesn't have to shake the earth to qualify as good, you know.
C//
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2)
The series was a little hard to get into and I had a hard time getting past Col. Crawford (god I was glad when that sob died), but I enjoyed it overall.
Thank god for tivo. There's no way I would have been able to watch this as it aired (2 hrs a night for 2 weeks - yikes). I found I could watch abount an hour at a sitting, although I watched the last two (4 hours today) because I wanted to find out how it ended before one of my friends started telling me the ending.
I have to admit I was dissapointed at some parts. I could have done without seeing Max Headroom nail Heather Donahue. The bits about the army trying to shoot down the aliens and march around in their ship was hard to take, although I was pleasantly surprised at the plot twist there. Mary Crawford's character seemed kind of forced, she need to wipe that smug smile off her face a little earlier in the series.
The ending was moving, though. I thought Dakota's performance made up for some of the series' other shortcomings. I knew what was coming, and yet the emotion of her sacrifice came through and carried the conclusion.
Not the end-all/be-all of sci-fi, but a good show to watch. I plan to transfer the whole thing to tape over the next few weeks and watch it again.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2)
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does every goddamm Hollywood production have to be another good vs. evil melodrama! Sheesh!
After it was all over I knew that the purpose of the production was to be filler for the commercial breaks.
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:2, Funny)
Is this a new euphemism for "died"? I kinda like it!
Re:Spielberg Over the Hill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently it does...
Roswell hasn't been a mystery for years, in the same way that the Bermuda Triangle isn't a mystery, nor are crop circles, Big Foot, Nostrodamus, Uri Geller, spontaneous human cumbustion, or ley lines.
A good fiction beats a dead mystery any time, and is infinitely more entertaining.
There are so many good stories to be told that don't involve the anal intrusion fantasies of psychotics or willful fabricators. What about anything by Robert Charles Wilson, or Robert Anton Wilson, Robert Silverberg (a plethora of Roberts), Gene Wolfe, etc.?
Come on, let's stop recycling the old and show some real imagination for a change.
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.
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.
Re:Take the Best Pieces..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Take the Best Pieces..... (Score:2)
Re:Take the Best Pieces..... (Score:2, Funny)
They want a mass audience for a niche movie... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They want a mass audience for a niche movie... (Score:2)
Re:They want a mass audience for a niche movie... (Score:4, Informative)
No. The entire script, all 1,200-odd pages of it, was written by a guy named Leslie Bohem, a writer with a distinctly unimpressive resume. It wasn't badly written in any sense, but it wasn't an instant classic, either. (Most of the episodes were directed by different directors.)
The storyline follows three generations of three families, starting during World War II and ending in the present day. The interrelationships between the various members of the three families are almost too complex, but it makes for a nicely cohesive story.
Taken wasn't without fault, though. Many of the second-tier characters were little more than sketches-- I never knew what to make of Matt Frewer's character, for instance-- and at least one two-hour episode seemed to drag in the middle.
But even at its worst, it was a hell of a lot better than last year's Dune fiasco. Ugh.
Re:They want a mass audience for a niche movie... (Score:2)
It was a story that spanned generations starting from the 40's to the present day. Three families involved - the family of Crawford (an Army guy investigating the crash/abductions), the Clarke family (cross-bred with the aliens) and the Keys (father was a wwII pilot abducted by aliens - the aliens like to abduct his son and grandson as well).
Spielberg is done... (Score:2)
Minority Report was one of my favorite Dick stories and he ruined that as well.
Taken started off promising, but ended up turning into a happy, feel-good story. Oh well.
Perhaps the key to Spielberg is to avoid the movies and read what the movie is based on.
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.
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:2)
It seems like we have another person here who didn't get A.I. At the end of the movie, the uber-mecha created an illusion of David's mother for him, let him spend a day with her, and then euthanized him. I really don't understand how you could get "happily ever after" out of that.
I wrote a longer comment on this here [slashdot.org], which I guess I'll be turning into a journal article soon.
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:2)
David couldn't have committed suicide. He wasn't programmed to. The fact that David could never have been more than he was made to be is key to the whole movie.
And where do you get the whole euthanasia thing anyways?
"That was the everlasting moment he had been waiting for. And the moment had passed, for Monica was sound asleep. More than merely asleep. Should he shake her, she would never rouse. So David went to sleep, too. And for the first time in his life, he went to that place where dreams are born."
Sleep has been a metaphor for death since people first started telling stories. There's really not much room to interpret this in any other way, especially since David said in the first act, "I can never go to sleep. But I can lay quietly and not make a peep."
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Professor Hobby said, "I propose that we build a robot who can love."
The advanced mecha wanted David to be happy, not to terminate him.
Yes. But they realized that David, because he was built to love, could never be happy. Monica, the only person he could ever love, was gone forever. Better to give him a moment of happiness and then end him than to condemn him to an eternity of sorrow.
This is important because it shows that the mecha are capable of making the choice that no human in the story was able to make. It shows that the mecha were, in the end, far more human than humans had ever been.
David was sleeping and dreaming, that's all.
In Act I, David said, "I can never go to sleep, but I can lie still and not make a peep." The basic premise of the movie is that David can never transcend himself. He could no more go to sleep than he could turn back time or sprout wings and fly.
If she were an illusion, they wouldn't have needed a sample of her hair to create her
They didn't need the hair. The hair, and David's reaction to it, was simply the last piece of evidence the mecha needed to conclude that David could never be happy without Monica.
she was a clone with monica's soul inside, yet altered so she wouldn't think about anyone or much of anything other than David
I think that's much more of a reach than my interpretation. The Monica of Act III was obviously not the same character as the Monica of Act I. She was merely a reflection, an imperfect copy.
Saving Private Ryan.... (Score:2)
not on a sad note??? (Score:2)
AI - Humanity is dead and gone, it's an ice age, little mecha boys gets euthanised.
Taken - After countless numbers of people that have been killed, abducted, and had their lives ruined, a family loses their daughter - who had no choice but to leave because of her repressive government. Then the aliens leave and humanity is left with nothing from their encounters.
Granted everyone didn't die at the end of Taken, but how is it not sad? I'm sure plenty of people were sobbing as the girl was taken.
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:3, Insightful)
According to several source I've come across, the ending to A.I. as released was very much the ending Kubrick had in mind. The most "Spielbergian" touches were the way the supermechas in the end appeared--as woo-woo "Close Encounters" aliens, which just made a lot of audiences think they were aliens instead of indirect descendants of David, the little robot boy.
I didn't like A.I. much and I particularly didn't like the ending--but look. David, fixated on "becoming real" to please his human mother throughout the entire movie, is reactivated to find out not only his mother but all human beings have been dead for centuries. It's as if Pinnochio not only failed to become real but returned home to learn Geppetto and his cat were killed in a citywide firestorm, and the Blue Fairy is only real enough to give the still-wooden puppet one last vivid dream of all he's lost. This is a happy ending to you?
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:2)
When I watched "Blade Runner" I felt transported, somewhat overpowered and amazed. More or less the same cocktail of emotions as when I read the K. Dick novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", but not exactly, and there have been other shades as well. All in all, it was a different experience. Not lesser, just different.
Now, I don't kow how "Blade Runner" would have been if K. Dick directed it, but I guess there's a reason why he didn't make it in the movie business, while Spielberg did.
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:2)
Consequently, you are wrong; A.I. was at the very least inspired by Pinocchio. Just because the inspiration comes from a saccharine children's story doesn't make it any less valid. Truthfully, I think that it is very relevant to re-examine these themes, especially now when we are looking at the possibility of a world where the marionettes may begin to walk, talk, and think on their own. Will this be examined from all angles? Yes, absolutely, but the versions that are profitable will be the ones that leave the audience feeling good about themselves when the production is done. If you're not one of the people that felt good, that's okay, because for everyone who didn't, there were five people that did, and thus the movie makes money.
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think most people would have liked Minority Report a LOT better (I know I would have) had it ended when they stuck Anderton in the holding cells. Left the audience guessing, make the audience think afterwards rather than explain everything and then give a conclusion on morality. Had they left it open and left us guessing at the injustices of the world, it would have been a MUCH better movie. Of course, that's not the happy ending that most people are expecting from an action movie.
Hmm...looks like we're seeing a trend here, ne?
The trick to Spielberg is to stop watching at the right time. There's a point where the story shifts from good to cheesy (re-awakening Anderton, reawakening David, etc.) and THAT is where you should stop watching. Do that, and you're good to go.
By the way, Spielberg shouldn't alone be blamed for bad movies made from sf books and short stories. No, Minority Report was no 2001 or Blade Runner. But it wasn't Johnny Mnemonic or Starship Troopers, both great pieces of work with plenty of potential for a great movie, but which ultimately ended up as total crap. I'd say the blame falls on the general public which wants feel-good action movies and more simple good-evil plots. If there was a market for good movies, they'd make them, but what the GP wants is escapist crap.
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:2)
None of that actually literally happened. The last act of the film was largely a fantasy created by the uber-mecha for David, taking place entirely within his mind. And the ending was anything but happy. I've got a little article on this subject on my journal; I wonder if you would consider taking a look at it?
I'd say the blame falls on the general public
Hardly. In the case of Starship Troopers, at least, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Paul "Showgirls" Verhoeven.
Re:Spielberg is done... (Score:2)
Pardon my French, but are you out of your fucking mind? What could possible inspire you to characterize Schindler's List, arguably one of the finest films of the century, as "botched?"
Not one of them has any depth to it
The fact that you're not willing to look for it doesn't mean it's not there.
Like a fat man in a marathon. (Score:3, Insightful)
It may have come sprinting off the line, but it was gasping for breath by the end.
And the message? "The little green men don't know dick either!"
???
Ah well. If you think about it, it's probably impossible to keep something nice and consistently interesting and intelligent for 15 straight hours.
At least they didn't have people running around with tinfoil on their heads for the entire thing.
Re:Like a fat man in a marathon. (Score:2)
You're referring to Signs? That was the best part of that whole movie. In fact, it might have been the only good part.
C//
I actually liked it (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be less disappointing with no aliens... (Score:3, Interesting)
'Tis a natural fault. (Score:2)
Is "Taken" really great? Nah.
Is "Taken" worth watching? Sure.
Re:'Tis a natural fault. (Score:2)
That's not what happened here. The entire miniseries was written by Leslie Bohem. It consists of a very tightly plotted story that covers more than half a century. It might look disjoint at first, but viewed from a distance it's actually not at all.
Ending song? (Score:2)
Re:Ending song? (Score:3, Funny)
Can anyone tell me where to find this song and what album it is on?
Yes, I would be happy to help.
You can find it on the internet. The album is titled KaZaA.
Agree w/Author -- Taken Away and Dropped On Mars (Score:4, Informative)
After the weekend though, it felt as if Spielberg decided to take a nap and let one of his assistants take over. The story became uninteresting with two supposed "lovers"--ages apart--running around teetering from being "bad guys" to "good guys" to just plain "weird guys."
While the first five were good--the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth were manageable--the seventh episode was the killer. In the seventh episode we watched the inside of a room and the outside of a building for an hour and a half as we learned as little as possible about the rest of the story. Watching the preview on the eight episode was more interesting than the two hours of the seventh.
While I am critical about the last few episodes I feel that overall it was worth twenty hours (two per evening) to watch this mini-series event. Not only was it interesting--to a point--seeing twenty hours of rather "quality" programming in two weeks is hard to do with the shows on television. If you have the time, check out the reruns this weekend on the Sci-Fi channel (at least the first five).
Re:Agree w/Author -- Taken Away and Dropped On Mar (Score:2)
Seeing as how Spielberg had nothing to do with the story, the writing, the directing, or the editing, that's not too hard to believe.
Re:Agree w/Author -- Taken Away and Dropped On Mar (Score:3, Informative)
There were 11 different people credited with directing [imdb.com], and Leslie Bohem [imdb.com] is credited with the writing.
What did Speilburg do on this project?
"Executive Producer" [imdb.com]
A producer who is not involved in any technical aspects of the filmmaking process, but who is still responsible for the overall production. Typically an executive producer handles business and legal issues. See also associate producer, co-producer, line producer.
There were 7 other people credited with co-producing this little epic.
Steven apparently wrote the checks and had meetings once in a while to oversee what everyone else was doing.
Re:Agree w/Author -- Taken Away and Dropped On Mar (Score:2)
If I had to take a wild-ass guess, I'd say that Spielberg probably backed the production with his reputation and good name. I'm sure this miniseries cost a fortune to produce, and DreamWorks probably wouldn't have been able to raise the money to do it if it hadn't been for Spielberg's involvement.
But again, that's just a guess.
Sick of reviewers, critics, skeptics, guides, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's often been said that there are only two things that should be used to rate a movie on its entertainment merits.
1) Does the story take you somewhere?
2) Do you care about the outcome?
That's it. That is essentially what Spielberg and every other movie creator's goal is. They want to entertain and captivate audiences, but if that's going to happen they have to address those two crucial questions.
It's not that Spielberg isn't a master, it's just that he's forgetting the whole purpose. His movies have become too cold and outsider feeling; audiences are subsequently being turned off to his stories these days because, time and time again, they don't feel taken back or captivated, and they don't have an emotional tie-in to what happens in the plotline.
I think popular films of the current day can learn a lot from the anime sub-genre of filmography. It's about interesting characters that people care about, and stories they grow to love and understand. The basic simplicities of life.
Anime is not child pornography, it's not tentacle rape, it's not insert_whatever_typical_complaint_here -- it's just captivating, wonderful film. And it's new, it's fresh, it's fascinating, it's an art form.
Spielberg no longer is these things. He's old hat, washed up, boring, dull, tantric, mundane, and irrelevant any more. He turns great Kubrick, Dickens, and Shakespeare stories into a cold abbreviated plot with characters no one cares about and actors that aren't the most skilled craftsmen in their field.
I used to love Steve, I really did. But lately it's almost as though he's just doing movies to occupy his time. I no longer leave Spielberg movies at the theatre with my mouth open and dripping. I leave with a gritty taste in my mouth and thoughts of less-than-his-best wander throughout my head.
I miss the old Spielberg, and I'm sure you do too. Perhaps a petition is appropriate. Let's just say "Steve, get back to basics. We love you and respect you, but you're abondoning your true fans and are losing out on wonderful films as a result."
Well, that's just my two cents. Like I said, I'm not a critic, and I'm not putting him down.
Re:Sick of reviewers, critics, skeptics, guides, e (Score:2)
And books?
And Music?
Movies are just as viable a form of teaching and communication as any other interaction with ideas, no matter their source.
Spielberg Did Not Write This (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it was a fine series. The writing was often subtle and thoughtful - a rarity on television these days.
The Blair Witch girl cried so much... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Blair Witch girl cried so much... (Score:4, Funny)
I had to go watch 3 hours of good old-fashioned porn after that to get that image out of my head.
Over the Hill? ... An Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from that, what really sparks you as bad? Minority Report? For all of its plot discontinuities (did I spell that right?), I think that the consensus is positive - it was an enjoyable sci-fi film with good performances all around, albeit with a few cheesy moments. Let's look at his films of the late-90's. Amistad - never saw it, but heard good things. Saving Private Ryan - do I really need to go into this, it was hands down my pick for Best Picture in 1997 (Grr ... Shakespeare in Love?) At this point I'll mention his involvement with Band of Brothers. A little bit earlier, Schindler's List, another classic.
TV is a new avenue for Spielberg - don't count him out yet. Over the past few years, I think his good work outweighs his bad work.
Re:Over the Hill? ... An Opinion (Score:2)
The problem I have with Speilberg films is that they always seem to leave me unsatisfied. They're these hollow constructs, full of sound and fury, gestures without motion, completely unable to hide the incredible blandness of the scripts . He stopped taking chances, stopped trying to enrage or challenge his audience, instead choosing to be safe and politically correct. Family oriented is one thing, to emasculate a story such as "SPR" is unforgivable. And I certainly don't think that a few curse words or eviscerations counts as challenging an audience. His world seems to have sharp good and bad delineations and as a result his characters are so one sided it would give Moebius a thrill. They never endure in my mind or my heart, I feel no empathy or sympathy for their plight. Whether this is a consequence or poor acting or poor directing, I'm not certain. But I know he's directed some fine actors and actresses.
My personal experience with Spielberg films (Score:2)
?
B*O*Y*C*O*T*T (Score:2)
Not that I think I'm missing much. IMHO Spielberg's stuff has been pretty bad for a while. Here [netflix.com] is a DVD'd list of his film work -- how many titles have you seen, and how many have you liked? There are a number of notable turkeys. I know many people love him, but when I hear "Hollywood" as a put-down for something thought glib and slick and insincere, I immediately think "Spielberg."
So that's two strikes against the show. And, as we all know, even if we miss a show and later regret it, the reruns will hound us for years if the thing was halfway good, or even if not. I laugh now to think how I once meticulously archived Star Trek: TNG episodes (I confess that was a major reason I bought the VCR). I had no idea how popular the show would be!
Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T (Score:2)
Uh, rather than looking at an incomplete list on NetFlix (wtf?) why don't you look at the canonical source [imdb.com]. On that list you've got films like Minority Report, AI, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, The Lost World, Schindler's List, and Jurassic Park. And that's just what he's done in the past ten years. Of his three biggest flops-- Hook, Always, 1941-- two of them made a small profit at the box office. And his best films-- Schindler's List, Empire of the Sun, The Color Purple-- are some of the greatest movies ever made.
Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T (Score:2)
I haven't seen Schlindler's List and want to, though there you have a topic of such gravity your film will seem significant as well (I liked Life is Beautiful as a totally weird take on the Holocaust; Benigni just barely pulled it off). The Color Purple was (for me -- my wife loves it) slick and unconvincing; I could feel Spielberg reaching out from the screen to emotionally manipulate the audience. Jurassic Park was cute as a faux nature show, but otherwise had me bored and chanting for Goldblum to get eaten (now that would have been a directorial decision I would admire). Saving Private Ryan crashed after the first 20 minutes. And so on.
Greatest movies ever made? At the box office. Mostly unmemorable cotton candy. That even his flops make some money reflects his brand name and how difficult it is for unknowns to break in.
Please don't think I'm some art film guy. I like junk, but good junk. Spielberg's Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark are milestones, if not art. My tastes run to Witness or Bladerunner (both Ford's best) or The Big Sleep or Ordinary People (for MTM) or 12 Angry Men or The Outlaw Josey Wales (magnificent Clint) or Das Boot (way better war movie than Pvt. Ryan) or Witness for the Prosecution.... Well, an eclectic crowd. I mention these just as reference to where I'm coming from, not as recommendation.
I doubt I'm alone on this, and of course there's no one actor or director or screenwriter for everyone -- fortunately! I also not expecting to start a career as critic.
Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T (Score:2)
How could you forsake The Mosquito Coast? Blade Runner is a great movie, but Ford's performance wasn't that much to write home about. Wooden-by-design. But The Mosquito Coast is a great piece of film.
Das Boot (way better war movie than Pvt. Ryan)
I guess you have a different definition of "better war movie" than I do. I can't even compare Das Boot and Saving Private Ryan. They're completely different works, as far as I can see. The only thing they have in common is that they're both set during a war.
Oh yeah (Score:2)
Re:B*O*Y*C*O*T*T (Score:2)
I've seen TV episodes piling up on Netflix and will eventually try more. I rented one Farscape disk, which was cool without ads but also kind of unnerving because the shows still have these dramatic moments and fade-to-blacks obvious calculated for ad breaks
Maybe TV shows really need ads, to be enjoyed as the creators intended.
P.S. I haven't seen Nemesis (Star Trek X) but am confident it will not lose money when all is said and done, as it's generic popcorn fare. For chrissakes, Waterworld earned money! (Cost: $175M; Gross:$255M!) [the-numbers.com] 2/3 of the gross was foreign, where evidently they do not have access to American reviews, or dubbing somehow improves the film which seemed dubbed anyway. Once you factor in merchandising and broadcast fees and DVD/VHS sales they must come out OK, if money is one's only object (true for the studio). And in my HUMBLE opinion, Waterworld STANK! Nemesis (cost?) has already taken in about $8M.
BTW, LOL, FDIC, etc.
I Liked When the Visitors Turn Out to Be Lizards (Score:5, Funny)
Over-Hyped (Score:2)
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.
Simpsons Did It (Score:2)
G'bye Karma
it wasn't about the aliens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh well, what do i expect from reviews by people that read slashdot...
Spoiler Alert!! (Score:3, Funny)
You have been warned.
Taken... By SciFi - OR - Bumpers are better (Score:2)
I would like to see what was left on the cutting room floor.
Characters that changed completely or were dropped out entirely.
supposedly there was a Narc in the AA mtg.
Charley's personality does a 180.
Little Blondie becomes a half-comatose bawling non-alien.
MaxHeadroom and SheBitch pretend to have a thing for each other... Or do they...Or don't they... Beats me.
Haul in the troops. Bang our sheilds. What you mean she's gone? Oh well I guess we can leave them alone now.
It bit.
The best parts of the show were the living-tattoos on the illustrated-chef, the buzzing in bubble-toed-insect-boy and the suprise budda-gator in the scifi-bumpers between shows
I would love to see a show dedicated to all those creations.
You knew it was going to suck (Score:2, Insightful)
larger than life? (Score:2, Insightful)
My Impressions (Score:5, Informative)
Taken
I liked it alot. Yes it had it's flaws, yes there are better things, but it was very entertaining. That they got me to devote 2 hours a night to watching it, to using my VCR to tape my normal favorite shows to watch later (instead of tapeing "Taken" to watch later) shows that was good. The events themselves were well paced, and the show moved along untill the last 2 or 3 episodes, which seemed like they were stretching for time.
I think that they did a very good job overall. I didn't think that the special effects were rediculous. Many times movies/miniseries/etc have special effects that are so over the top that you stop being "in" the movies, and get taken back to reality. That didn't happen here. I also think that Matt Frewer (the guy who played Edison Carter on Max Headroom) was perfect for his role. The little girl was great too. Nothing else seems to stand out that much acting wise. I also have to say that the switching between the 3 families was pretty confusing at first, before I got to know the characters. It seemed like they spent very little screen time on one family before moving to the next in some of the early episodes.
The story was pretty good overall. There were lots of good "it makes you think" type things, or just new twists on old ideas. For example, I loved the idea that the craft that crashed in Roswell crashed BECAUSE OF a weather balloon. I don't think I've ever heard that before. That was just such a perfect idea. I do have a few problems though. First of all, things like the little alien implant being some kind of centipede looking thing which causes people to go insane (or whatever) bothered me. It's not the idea, it's that it wasn't really explained, AT ALL. Also, the whole thing of the burial site in the woods had next to nothing to do with the story, except as an excuse to kill people.
So overall it was quite good. My biggest complaint can be derived from above. I think that there were a few things that they needed to spend more time on, and a number of things that they spent way to much time on (for their impact on the story). Overall, I'd give it a 4.5 or so out of 5. It was very intertaining.
Spielberg
Some have said above that he's "over the hill", "past his time", etc. Well, I think it's hit and miss. "Taken" was good, and I'm glad it was a miniseries because it wouldn't have worked as a movie, or just a 1 hour a week series. "AI" was pretty good, but it was LONG. A good chunk of that movie could go and it would be better. It reminded me ALOT of "Bicentennial Man," with a little bit of an "Outer Limits" episode thrown in. As for "Minority Report," I'm looking forward to seeing it. I always wait 'till things come out on DVD to see 'em, so I can't comment on it.
Sci-Fi Channel
I think they did great with this. It was heavily promoted so it didn't end up flying under the radar. And I'm glad that Spielberg's name was attached, because if that wasn't emphisized, I'm not sure I would have watched. I heard that it got over 6 million viewers one night (or something), which is the largest share any cable show has gotten ever (from what I heard, ignoring pay-per-view events); even outdoing the Sopranno's season primere. I do have two complaints for Sci-Fi though:
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.
It's about time compression of plot...... (Score:3, Insightful)
I really like the first 5 episodes, I also thought Jesse K. was the best character of the show. The early episodes with Owen Crawford held me spellbound (that character was my manager at Terabeam). The episode directed by the former "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was easily the spookiest. As the story came out of the "time compression" that they were holding to in the early episodes, the plot started to wander. There just wasn't enough depth of character to fill up the final hours.
Remember also that Steven S. was the overseer of all the other directors. The individual episodes had seperate directors and I could feel the difference from show to show.
In the end, it's all just entertainment....and most people here posting watched it...enjoy it, it was free and you also got to see those halfway funny IBM ads.
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: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.
SciFi replacing FOX for taking alien believers? (Score:2)
Close Encounters, Anyone? (Score:4, Funny)
There were some elements of this movie that were done and done quite well, but there simply wasn't enough to hold it together, not to mention I felt like I was watching every alien abduction movie that had ever been filmed spaced across a two weeks and massive hype. To make it worse, you finally find out the core of the Aliens plan of diabolical abductions, cross breeding and secret agendas... It's because they're curious. WHAT!? It took two weeks to tell the audiance that alien abductions are caused by beings that are "curious" and are looking to reawaken their emotions?! They needed this epic breeding program to find out THAT?! Aliens that don't know right and wrong. They're just curious. It was a total anti-climax. And in the end, all is right with the world and psycho woman finally sees the error of her ways, after the murder and attempted murder of a dozen people along the way. Riiiiiight.
I'll ask Spielburg a minor favor here... Don't make another alien abduction movie. Ever. Or a movie about aliens. Or one involving space. Or one...
The "Taken" Channel... (Score:4, Funny)
When ABC runs a mini-series, they don't suspend every other show on their network for the duration -- they show all of their regular programming at their usual times, changing only necessary shows to open up slots for the mini-series.
But not the Sci-Fi^h^h^h^h^h^hTaken Channel! They removed EVERYTHING BUT "Taken" from the lineup and replaced every single show with the cheesiest movie they could find, as though any timeslot NOT devoted to showing episodes of "Taken" (OR "Roswell" retrospectives" were beamed directly to the Satellite of Love.
I found this maddening, to say the least. I would have liked to be able to turn on the channel at some other time during that two weeks and see something OTHER than "Taken", bad Roswell "in search of" take-offs, or MST3K fodder. At the very least, I would have liked to be able to watch Babylon 5...but that's a totally different complaint. They don't give a crap about any show the fans actually LIKE. (Like Farscape.)
But I digress...
Then there is the sheer level of saturation. They decided to give us the super-deluxe "phalanx-gun" treatment for the "Taken Experience", making absolutely certain that there was NO WAY IN HELL we could miss an episode except on purpose!
Each episode would be shown THREE TIMES in a row, then once again the next night, before the new episode, then all of the first week's episodes were shown AGAIN on Saturday and Sunday, just in case! Then they showed the WHOLE THING this weeekend, in case you missed the last two weeks!
I must admit that it *was* convenient one night, when I simply HAD to watch the 11PM showing due to an evening meeting that ran long, but I could have set my VCR if I had needed to. This was such overwhelming oversaturation, it approached the baroque.
I certainly hope the ratings were what they expected...because it seems to me that Vivendi placed an awful lot of hope on this mini-series. If it didn't generate what they expected, I expect next to hear reports of bankruptcy filings.
---ArdRhi
Sic Biscuitus Disintegratum
Re:I Downloaded Taken (Score:2)
Yep, the science is the first thing to go followed by any attempt at having characters act intelligent, followed by any expectation that the audience will.
TWW
Re:I Downloaded Taken (Score:2)
Yeah. Lord knows movies like The Empire Strikes Back and Wrath of Khan we'd be better off without.
(Part XVII in the "Everything Sucks But Me" series.)
Re:"Taken" from other shows and movies... (Score:2)
I remembered it as one of the more cheesy episodes of ST:TNG, actually...so Taken must be pretty bad.
Re:The Worst Part!!! TollHouse cookies (Score:5, Informative)
It's very common for people who were raised in the 40's and 50's to say "toll house cookies" instead of "chocolate chip cookies." My mom was born in 1930, and she said "toll house cookies" all her life.
Re:It hasn't aired.. (Score:2)