Spielberg’s BFG - North American opening weekend flop

[Poe Dameron]

Now, for a guy (Spielberg) who--up to that time--was as far removed from creative frights as one could be

 

Did you just contend that the director of Jaws(!) doesn't know anything about scaring audiences? Seriously?

 

Poltergeist was Spielberg's baby one way or another, that much is certain. You can choose to believe what you will for Hooper's director credit, but all indications both from the people involved and the fingerprints you can see on the movie itself point to Spielberg as the main creative force behind that film.

 

 

 

Gremilins: Oh, come on. "dark comedy?" The end result of that fructose-filled affair was Christmas 1984 retail shelves overflowing with plastic and plush Gizmo figures, certainly more than Stripe.

 

Wow, did you ever miss the point of that movie. Gremlins was ahead of its time in subverting a lot of the the tropes you're railing against. If anyone was still confused, Dante just bashed it into your skull for the sequel. A lot of the criticism leveled against it came from complaints from parents who thought it was a family movie, but were surprised by how violent it was. It's one of the movies credited (Temple of Doom usually being the most prominently cited) with ushering in the PG-13 rating.

 

As for it filling Christmas shelves (it was a summer release btw). It was the 80s. That family friendly Robocop filled toy shelves a couple years later.

 

 

 

That you even reference Used Cars--a film taking most of its lower-end comedic cues from iJohn Milius, seems reaching

 

You don't get it. I literally went down the list of all the movies he directed and/or produced from 1980-84. I wasn't cherry-picking looking for stuff that didn't fit the mold. Those 10 movies are the extent of Spielberg's director and producer credits from that period.

 

And, as I said, the sum of your alleged sugary movies comes down to E.T. and one segment of an anthology. There just isn't anything else on his resume that qualifies.

[Justus]

 

Now, for a guy (Spielberg) who--up to that time--was as far removed from creative frights as one could be

 

1. Did you just contend that the director of Jaws(!) doesn't know anything about scaring audiences? Seriously?

 

 

2. Poltergeist was Spielberg's baby one way or another, that much is certain. You can choose to believe what you will for Hooper's director credit, but all indications both from the people involved and the fingerprints you can see on the movie itself point to Spielberg as the main creative force behind that film.

 

 

3. Wow, did you ever miss the point of that movie. Gremlins was ahead of its time in subverting a lot of the the tropes you're railing against. If anyone was still confused, Dante just bashed it into your skull for the sequel. A lot of the criticism leveled against it came from complaints from parents who thought it was a family movie, but were surprised by how violent it was. It's one of the movies credited (Temple of Doom usually being the most prominently cited) with ushering in the PG-13 rating.

 

As for it filling Christmas shelves (it was a summer release btw). It was the 80s. That family friendly Robocop filled toy shelves a couple years later.

 

 

4. You don't get it. I literally went down the list of all the movies he directed and/or produced from 1980-84. I wasn't cherry-picking looking for stuff that didn't fit the mold. Those 10 movies are the extent of Spielberg's director and producer credits from that period.

 

And, as I said, the sum of your alleged sugary movies comes down to E.T. and one segment of an anthology. There just isn't anything else on his resume that qualifies.

 

1. Jaws--from the Benchley novel to the film is a suspense / character driven story. Its not some exercise in pure horror like Kingdom of the Spiders or Dracula 1972 A.D. He (Spielberg) was no master of horror, despite Universal's admitted hyping the angle of viewers being afraid to go in the water.

 

2. "one way or another" is not a statement of fact--its your opinion, which (as noted yesterday) is nullified by Spielberg's statements about the myth. No one would hire one of modern horror cinema's kings of the period and push them in a corner.

 

3. No, Gremlins was not "ahead of its time" doing that. You do understand that the cutesy gimmicks I speak of were already receiving that kind subverted treatment in British cinema and TV of the 1960s? North American independent films of the same period? Please. Gremlins was another delivery system for cute puppet creatures in fantasy movies. I cited E.T. as the start, but the influence was the truly worthy Yoda, and after that, E.T., the Gelflings from The Dark Crystal, the aforementioned Gizmo, and other creatures to follow. The end result was Gizmo marketed to death as the would-be Christmas sensation. That was no post-release, happy accident, since numerous toy manufacturers had already secured the rights to make targeted Gremlins items long before the film's release. Why? They were clear on the intended heart of the film.

 

4. You plugged your own shower of praise on Spielberg by claiming he was a producer on The Blues Brothers, when he was merely a cameo performer in the film. Not helping your position at all. Oh, and if you're so sure he produced the film, post the original Universal credit sheet. Further, the Used Cars assessment stands, since it does not paint the Spielberg of the questioned period as something other than the would-be Disney he tried to be.

 

5. i noticed you skipped over my challenging your listing of Indiana Jones films as some sort of counter. It deserves a second look:

 

 

• Raiders: GL's creation, and it owed more to the Kaufman influence (centering the story on Nazi's pursuit of religious artifacts) than any of Spielberg's contributions. Spielberg has said he was bored shooting some of the film, which indicated a certain detachment from the full creative process.
• Temple of Doom: Spielberg has whined about this film since 1984, accusing Lucas of trying to mirror the Star Wars trilogy by having a dark middle act. So, any of the darkness of TOD lands in the lap of one George Lucas.

For Spielberg to cry about the "darkness" of TOD is all the evidence one needs to understand his state of mind at the time. That period of Spielberg was no Lucas, Hill, Stone, Carpenter or anyone else not in love with pixie dust.

[Poe Dameron]

1. Jaws--from the Benchley novel to the film is a suspense / character driven story. Its not some exercise in pure horror like Kingdom of the Spiders or Dracula 1972 A.D. He (Spielberg) was no master of horror, despite Universal's admitted hyping the angle of viewers being afraid to go in the water.

 

Shifting the goalposts I see. We've gone from Spielberg being "as far removed from creative frights as one could be" to quibbling over the purity of Jaws as a straight-up horror film.

 

That Spielberg had proven in Jaws that he knew how to create fear in his audience is rather self-evident. Universal hyping or not, if there's another film that created even a tenth as many real-life phobics as Jaws, I certainly can't think of it. When your audience takes the fear a film evokes outside of the theater and into their real lives, the director done did something right.

 

 

 

2. "one way or another" is not a statement of fact--its your opinion, which (as noted yesterday) is nullified by Spielberg's statements about the myth.

 

There are just too many people associated with that film that confirm Spielberg as the main creative force to dismiss. Even those that give Hooper credit acknowledge that Spielberg was all over the set and much more active in pre- and post-production.

 

For heaven's sake, just look at the "Making of" featurette they released and tell me whether it looked like Spielberg or Hooper was the guy in charge:

 

 

 

 

No, Gremlins was not "ahead of its time" doing that. You do understand that the cutesy gimmicks I speak of were already receiving that kind subverted treatment in British cinema and TV of the 1960s? North American independent films of the same period? Please.

 

You have a habit of going off-track. I didn't say it was the first of it's kind.

 

Simply having puppets does not automatically mean that it's all sweet and niceness. You mentioned Yoda. This movie certainly didn't fit that mold. Heck, neither did The Dark Crystal for that matter.

 

 

 

i noticed you skipped over my challenging your listing of Indiana Jones films as some sort of counter

 

Once again, I listed his whole filmography from 1980-84. You don't seem to get that I didn't cherry pick anything or choose a few films that supported my argument as a counter. I looked at everything he did and only 1.25 movies remotely qualify for what you said he was doing.

 

 

 

4. You plugged your own shower of praise on Spielberg by claiming he was a producer on The Blues Brothers, when he was merely a cameo performer in the film. Not helping your position at all.

 

Fine, I misread his filmography. Take it off the list (Room 666 as well). Doesn't hurt me, I didn't put it there to bolster my position in the first place. His filmography is equally as barren of the cutesy movies that you claim he was making whether Blues Brothers is included or not in the films that aren't. You seem to think that the burden is on me. But you made the statement that he made all these sweet movies in that time.

 

I'll go ahead and challenge you: List all of them. You can't, because they don't exist.

[Justus]

 

 

1. Shifting the goalposts I see. We've gone from Spielberg being "as far removed from creative frights as one could be" to quibbling over the purity of Jaws as a straight-up horror film.

 

That Spielberg had proven in Jaws that he knew how to create fear in his audience is rather self-evident. Universal hyping or not, if there's another film that created even a tenth as many real-life phobics as Jaws, I certainly can't think of it. When your audience takes the fear a film evokes outside of the theater and into their real lives, the director done did something right.

 

 

 

2. There are just too many people associated with that film that confirm Spielberg as the main creative force to dismiss. Even those that give Hooper credit acknowledge that Spielberg was all over the set and much more active in pre- and post-production.

 

For heaven's sake, just look at the "Making of" featurette they released and tell me whether it looked like Spielberg or Hooper was the guy in charge:

 

3. You have a habit of going off-track. I didn't say it was the first of it's kind.

 

Simply having puppets does not automatically mean that it's all sweet and niceness. You mentioned Yoda. This movie certainly didn't fit that mold. Heck, neither did The Dark Crystal for that matter.

 

 

4. Once again, I listed his whole filmography from 1980-84. You don't seem to get that I didn't cherry pick anything or choose a few films that supported my argument as a counter. I looked at everything he did and only 1.25 movies remotely qualify for what you said he was doing.

 

 

5. Fine, I misread his filmography. Take it off the list (Room 666 as well). Doesn't hurt me, I didn't put it there to bolster my position in the first place. His filmography is equally as barren of the cutesy movies that you claim he was making whether Blues Brothers is included or not in the films that aren't. You seem to think that the burden is on me. But you made the statement that he made all these sweet movies in that time.

 

I'll go ahead and challenge you: List all of them. You can't, because they don't exist.

 

1. The only way you could claim "shifting goal posts" is if you've never read the novel, and adaptation changes aside, missed the suspense / character-heavy drive of the film, which was apparent. You seem like one of those types who (for example) walked away from Scarface thinking it was some cool celebration of gangster life, instead of a hard condemnation of that life.

 

2. Spielberg debunked those myths long ago. He made a point of doing that to end the masturbatory cackles that he ghost directed the film.

 

3. You said it was "ahead of its time," a statement usually indicating a starting point before an idea, product, etc., becomes the norm. Again, if you were aware of film and TV history, you would not say Gremlins was ahead of its time in that regard.

 

4. You are glossing over the Indiana Jones films being the result of the heavy Lucas influence (especially in Temple of Doom), hence Spielberg loses yet another period-specific shield from the Disney-esque charge.

 

5. Misread? Ohhh, its not that easy to brush off, smiley. You do realize that listing a completely false credit stands as a major misrepresentation of Spielberg--stripping him of yet another adult-themed credit? There's no escaping that--it was one of the pillars of your argument, now crumbled.

 

Finally, Spielberg's:

• period-specific work, starting with Columbia rejecting Night Skies (E.T.) because in their view (a direct statement), it was, "A wimpy, Walt Disney movie."
• Spielberg's decades-long whining streak about the "darkness" of Temple of Doom--meaning that dark content was not his desire, influence or interest.
• His deliberate change to the somber part of the original conclusion of "Kick the Can," replacing it with a syrupy, magical ending. Why? Somber endings did not appeal to him at the time.
• Hiring a master of horror like Tobe Hooper to helm Poltergeist, which would not happen if he (Spielberg) thought he was in touch with horror enough to direct it himself.

At the end of it all, Spielberg did paint himself as a kind of modern Disney, including the development (in that era) of animated productions such as An American Tail, etc. Undoubtedly, continue to deny his interests and strongest period drive, but the evidence--and his own statements close the book on the matter....not that you won't return to...

[Poe Dameron]

I'm rather convinced you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. Let me remind you about the quote from you that set us down this path:

 

Justus:

 

That's why his early 80's career (not counting Raiders, for obvious, GL reasons) was his directing or producing a wealth of saccharine-drunk, cutesy fantasies.

 

To which I posted Spielberg's entire filmography and could only find two movies that remotely qualify, one of which was 1/4 of an anthology.

 

You have not been able to produce any more examples of such fantasies. When challenged, you turned around and posted E.T. again with a studio quote about it. You also brought up the segment of The Twilight Zone movie that I'd already brought up myself and credited.

 

Basically, you came up with exactly the same number of movies that I did: 1.25 movies. A number that does not constitute a "wealth" no matter how you cut it.

 

You then tried to pad the total by bringing up some quotes about Temple of Doom being too dark (a rather common opinion of that movie) and that he hired someone else to direct Poltergeist. But neither are even relevant to the backing of your contention that there were a wealth of movies that fit into that category.

 

 

 

stripping him of yet another adult-themed credit? There's no escaping that--it was one of the pillars of your argument, now crumbled.

 

It wasn't a pillar of my argument at all. This isn't even a reading comprehension issue. You are simply ignoring what I am telling you is the purpose of listing those movies. I've already said this at least three times, including within the very quote that you used to challenge the Blues Brothers credit.

 

My purpose in posting his filmography was to search for the movies that you claim he made during this period. It wasn't to list alternative adult-themed movies. I included E.T. and The Twilight Zone Movie within that list. Which means that you're spending a lot of time attacking an argument that isn't even being made and patting yourself on the back for supposedly making it crumble.

 

So, yes, I'll brush off the error. Furthermore, I dismiss your attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me. Which is really what you're trying to do here.

 

 

 

1. The only way you could claim "shifting goal posts" is if you've never read the novel

 

I have read the novel, not that it matters. This quote was what was challenged:

 

Justus:

 

Now, for a guy (Spielberg) who--up to that time--was as far removed from creative frights as one could be

 

Now, for that quote to be at all valid, you need to contend that Jaws had no scary elements whatsoever. Now, obviously Jaws frightened audiences. You want to turn this into an argument about what genre the movie belongs within. That is shifting the goalposts. I am telling you that it won't be allowed and you must own what you said.

 

The idea that Spielberg hadn't shown his ability to create fear in his audience to that point in his career is patently ridiculous. Not only had he tried to do so, but he'd done so with overwhelming success.

 

 

 

4. You are glossing over the Indiana Jones films being the result of the heavy Lucas influence

 

Yes, I am. I am ignoring this extraneous detail that doesn't help your argument at all. I never challenged that Lucas was involved in the tone of the Indiana Jones movies. You wish to keep coming back to it, but it doesn't matter. The two Indiana Jones movies don't count for family friendly entertainment. Therefore, they don't matter, whether the tone came from Spielberg or Lucas.

 

Sorry, did you actually think you were helping your own argument by bringing this up a thousand times?

 

 

 

3. You said it was "ahead of its time," a statement usually indicating a starting point before an idea, product, etc

 

No, it means ahead of its time. Where subverting of the genre is commonplace today, back when Gremlins was produced, it was rare, particularly coming directly from Hollywood. This would be an example of audiences who don't get it. Including you apparently as you mistook it for a straight-up family film, which it certainly was not.

 

 

 

2. Spielberg debunked those myths long ago. He made a point of doing that to end the masturbatory cackles that he ghost directed the film.

 

I'm not aware of anyone involved in the movie, Spielberg included, that doesn't acknowledge that Spielberg was the big boss and creative force behind that movie and it was certainly promoted from the very beginning as a Steven Spielberg film. There is some disagreement about whether he deserves a directors credit or not, but it being Spielberg's film at its core really isn't in doubt.

 

Now, we can go around and around on this. But let me just put things to rest like I should have done at the beginning. One way or another, Poltergeist isn't going to be a mark in your favor for a family-friendly movie.

 

Therefore the question of who directed it is irrelevant. I only allowed you to continue in that vein because it was interesting.

[Driver]

Maybe you guys should discuss what it's like to live with the incredible burden of never being wrong about anything ever!

 

I know I struggle with it...

[Poe Dameron]

Oh look, internet shaming. Unique.

 

Yes, it's a stupid conversation. Justus made a series of dumb comments and is busy spinning all over the place with strawmen, shifting the goalposts, shifting the burden, and, with the last post, juvenile taunts. It's what he does because HE can't admit when he's wrong. But sometimes it's fun to just smack a guy's head into the ground and keep pointing out the stupid thing that they said as they desperately struggle to change the topic.

 

Sadly, there's always some outside observer who walks in and stands in the middle for THEIR ego's sake. At least you avoided usual gay taunt that often accompanies it. But you'd think that you might hesitate a bit on that accusation on a thread where I flat out admitted an error as soon as it was pointed out, and at least left open the possibility of being partially wrong about another key element (who directed Poltergeist).

 

So, let me ask, what did I do or say that deserves such treatment? Frankly, I think I did a pretty good job of tearing apart his arguments and not letting him off the hook. I mean, I could have been a standard internet dick and answered him with something glib at the start. I know how to do that. Would that have been more socially acceptable?

[Justus]

Poe,you screwed yourself over by ignoring the details, replacing it with your embarrassing, clumsy "case" built on fantasy, lies...whatever you cobbled together.

 

Read carefully, so you do continue giving sold-out performances in the play called Not A Single Soul Buys Your Nonsense:

 

1.. Listing a film is not addressing the details related to Spielberg's point of view. Necessary. I should not need to explain that. You are glossing over the Indiana Jones films being the result of the heavy Lucas influence (especially in Temple of Doom), hence Spielberg loses yet another period-specific shield from the Disney-esque charge.

 

2.. The Blues Brothers. Yes, The Blues Brothers. In your desperate need to give Spielberg credits never earned to support your fairy tale, you said he was the film's producer. Furthermore, you said you misread the credit. I'm calling that a lie, as there's no possible way his easy to find credit as Cook County Assessor's Office clerk somehow reads as "producer" or "produced by." That king-sized act of misrepresenting Spielberg only removes the adult-themed credits that was the heart of your entire "case" or whatever you were doing.

 

3. Spielberg's period-specific work, starting with Columbia rejecting Night Skies (E.T.) because in their view (a direct statement), it was, "A wimpy, Walt Disney movie." Columbia experienced the real Spielberg's motivations.

 

4. Spielberg's decades-long whining streak about the "darkness" of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom--meaning that dark content was not his desire, influence or interest.

 

5. His deliberate change to the somber part of the original conclusion of "Kick the Can," replacing it with a syrupy, magical ending, which was the heart of his creative drive at the time.

 

6. Hiring a master of horror--Tobe Hooper--to helm Poltergeist, would not happen if he (Spielberg) thought he was in touch with horror enough to direct it himself.

 

As much as you try to ignore history, it will not skippity-skip away support your laugh-inducing, revisionist fairy tales. There was a reason the Spielberg in this period was often referred to as a modern-day Disney--instead of some well-balanced, across the board film-maker..a film maker who did not create nor was he the force behind the often blue humor of Used Cars.

 

So, you can continue to con yourself into believing you were "tearing apart" my argument, but your fantasies, lies, misrepresentation, and ignorance of key details in Spielberg's record is not supported by evidence.

[Justus]

Maybe you guys should discuss what it's like to live with the incredible burden of never being wrong about anything ever!

 

I know I struggle with it...

............

[Poe Dameron]

Once again:

 

Justus:

That's why his early 80's career (not counting Raiders, for obvious, GL reasons) was his directing or producing a wealth of saccharine-drunk, cutesy fantasies.

 

That wasn't a statement about Spielberg's mindset. It was a statement about his production.

 

I didn't say that Spielberg was the main force behind Used Cars. I didn't say that he was happy with Temple of Doom's tone. Indeed, each time you've tried to put the argument onto me that I was trying to make a case for Spielberg as a primarily adult-themed artist at that time, I've outright refused to own it. I suffer no distress with people failing to buy that argument for the simple fact that I've made no attempt to sell it in the first place.

 

All I've said from the very beginning was that there was no "wealth" of movies in the family friendly category. Only two movies directed or produced by Spielberg qualify, one of which was only a segment in an anthology. Despite your having 6 points up there, you still only have two movies to show for it.

 

Now, unless you wish to claim that two movies constitutes a "wealth", have the decency to admit you were wrong.

 

 

 

I'm calling that a lie, as there's no possible way his easy to find credit as Cook County Assessor's Office clerk somehow reads as "producer" or "produced by."

 

You can call it whatever you'd like. It was still an honest error that I owned up to the moment you pointed it out. I realized I made the same error with Room 666 and volunteered it before being challenged.

 

Other than a mild embarrassment, it's meaningless to the actual conversation beyond your misrepresenting why I listed his filmography in the first place.

 

 

 

6. Hiring a master of horror--Tobe Hooper--to helm Poltergeist, would not happen if he (Spielberg) thought he was in touch with horror enough to direct it himself.

 

Just to clarify on this, Hooper was hired because Spielberg was directing E.T. immediately after filming on Poltergeist ended. There are competing views as to whether Spielberg either didn't want to direct two movies back-to-back (the official story) or that he was prohibited from directing another movie by his E.T. contract.

 

I have found absolutely no indication that Spielberg hired somebody else because he didn't think he could handle the material. Feel free to back up your statement by quoting anyone involved.

 

I'm content to let things on this stand on this point as agree to disagree because there are competing views even from those involved and it is a side issue. As I said, it doesn't matter as far as the original argument goes. Spielberg is either an uncredited co-director or he's a highly involved writer/producer in that film. Either way, it's not family material, so it does not help your original point.

[Justus]

Once again:

 

Justus:

 

That's why his early 80's career (not counting Raiders, for obvious, GL reasons) was his directing or producing a wealth of saccharine-drunk, cutesy fantasies.

 

1. That wasn't a statement about Spielberg's mindset. It was a statement about his production.

 

I didn't say that Spielberg was the main force behind Used Cars. I didn't say that he was happy with Temple of Doom's tone. Indeed, each time you've tried to put the argument onto me that I was trying to make a case for Spielberg as a primarily adult-themed artist at that time, I've outright refused to own it. I suffer no distress with people failing to buy that argument for the simple fact that I've made no attempt to sell it in the first place.

 

2. All I've said from the very beginning was that there was no "wealth" of movies in the family friendly category. Only two movies directed or produced by Spielberg qualify, one of which was only a segment in an anthology. Despite your having 6 points up there, you still only have two movies to show for it.

 

3. You can call it whatever you'd like. It was still an honest error that I owned up to the moment you pointed it out. I realized I made the same error with Room 666 and volunteered it before being challenged.

 

Other than a mild embarrassment, it's meaningless to the actual conversation beyond your misrepresenting why I listed his filmography in the first place.

 

 

4. Just to clarify on this, Hooper was hired because Spielberg was directing E.T. immediately after filming on Poltergeist ended. There are competing views as to whether Spielberg either didn't want to direct two movies back-to-back (the official story) or that he was prohibited from directing another movie by his E.T. contract.

 

I have found absolutely no indication that Spielberg hired somebody else because he didn't think he could handle the material. Feel free to back up your statement by quoting anyone involved.

 

 

 

1. What? His mindset informed his work at that time--his reason for directing, writing or producing anything or rejecting the content of films he's directed. If the content was syrupy, Disney-wannabe material, then that was the intent--the end result of his view on story, tone and the message he wanted to send to audiences. If live action was not enough to explore his Disney-wannabe side,, in this same period (as early as the winter of '84), he was in development stages on his adaptation of An American Tail, wielding a very influential hand in its production--arguably more than Bluth.

 

2. "or the simple fact that I've made no attempt to sell it in the first place" --a denial of your position means you had no point to this--aside from trying to be the local contrarian. In this thread, several films born of his Disney-wannabe beliefs were mentioned, yet you lie--again--with this "two" nonsense. At this point, it all just comes off as clawing for anything that would keep your struggle going.

 

3. This is not about your obvious embarrassment--it is about creating a false credit (lie) to support the argument selling Spielberg's period-specific "adult" film interests.

 

4. What was the point of getting a director known for being strong on nearly every side of horror? Why not hire a plug in director you could manipulate or override as much as possible--especially if one believes the long-debunked "ghost director" myth? Hooper hired for any other reason does not make a whit of sense, since his horror reputation was golden at the time this film was developed.

 

Again, you were trying to sell the opposite of the Disney charge (or admit you had no point), but instead of honestly exploring all of his work during this period--and his view about each (which would hurt the premise of Spielberg not being a Disney-wannabe), you dodged in-plain-sight evidence. Agree to disagree, but history--thankfully--cannot be erased.

[Poe Dameron]

Jeez, you're still going?

In this thread, several films born of his Disney-wannabe beliefs were mentioned, yet you lie--again--with this "two" nonsense.

Lie? What are you talking about? I've waited patiently for you to name a third movie. I again challenge you to list them. A simple list, not a litany of arguments.

1. E.T.
2. The Twilight Zone (one segment)
3. ???

Add a third movie from 1980-84 to the list. Not an excuse, not an extra embellishment of why E.T. and the segment in Twilight Zone were extra bad and should count for more. Not an alleged quote from Spielberg that somehow puts Temple of Doom up there despite obviously not qualifying. Just add another movie. And, no, An American Tail doesn't count. I was already being lenient in the definition of early-80s by including everything up through 1984. It can't conceivably count as early-80s even under the broadest definition if it's from 1986.

What? His mindset informed his work at that time--his reason for directing, writing or producing anything or rejecting the content of films he's directed. If the content was syrupy, Disney-wannabe material, then that was the intent--the end result of his view on story, tone and the message he wanted to send to audiences.

You're the one that keeps bringing up mindset for Temple of Doom because of some quotes about him thinking it was too dark instead of the actual content of the movie.

I'm just doing an accounting over here.

a denial of your position means you had no point to this--aside from trying to be the local contrarian.

I directly stated what my actual position was. That there is no "wealth" of movies. Only two, one of which was only a segment of an anthology.

This was always a simple and easy fact-check that you refused to back down from. You preferred to attack a strawman.

3. This is not about your obvious embarrassment--it is about creating a false credit (lie) to support the argument selling Spielberg's period-specific "adult" film interests.

Sigh. You obviously have no good faith and are just trolling this point now. You want to cry "liar", have at it. I know what my point was in listing his filmography, you know what my point was even though you pretend not to, and frankly everyone else doesn't give a damn.

What was the point of getting a director known for being strong on nearly every side of horror?

By all accounts, Spielberg had intended to let Hooper have the movie. But he took a more active role than even he expected during production. The first reason usually given being that Spielberg found himself reluctant to let the material go and more or less ran over a less forceful, less empowered director. The second, I've avoided mentioning, but there were rumors of drug use on the set of Poltergeist and Hooper pretty much went to rehab right after the movie wrapped up, so Spielberg took a more active role just to keep the movie on track.

[Justus]

1. Jeez, you're still going?

 

 

2.I've waited patiently for you to name a third movie. I again challenge you to list them. A simple list, not a litany of arguments.

 

1. E.T.

2. The Twilight Zone (one segment)

3. ???

 

Add a third movie from 1980-84 to the list. Not an excuse, not an extra embellishment of why E.T. and the segment in Twilight Zone were extra bad and should count for more. Not an alleged quote from Spielberg that somehow puts Temple of Doom up there despite obviously not qualifying. Just add another movie. And, no, An American Tail doesn't count. I was already being lenient in the definition of early-80s by including everything up through 1984. It can't conceivably count as early-80s even under the broadest definition if it's from 1986.

 

 

 

3. This is not about your obvious embarrassment--it is about creating a false credit (lie) to support the argument selling Spielberg's period-specific "adult" film interests.

 

3. Sigh. You obviously have no good faith and are just trolling this point now. You want to cry "liar", have at it. I know what my point was in listing his filmography, you know what my point was even though you pretend not to, and frankly everyone else doesn't give a damn.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Funny. You continued to reply, so what's this about "still going" in this thread?

 

 

2 & 3. Guy, you posted a filmography omitting that which did not support your fractured fairy tale about some wealth of Spielberg's period-specific "adult" film interests. Additionally, you added work with content Spielberg either had no BTS connection to at all (The Blues Brothers), did not shape in any way that would bolster said fairy tale (Used Cars or erasing the why and how of Hooper's involvement in Poltergeist).

 

If that was not bad enough, for such a thorough Spielberg researcher, you conveniently left out (ignored) other work hard leaning in his Disney direction such as the aforementioned An American Tail, developed in the period in question. Once again, his mindset informed his work at that time--his reason for directing, writing or producing anything or rejecting the content of films he's directed.

 

I know you're desperate to be "right" about something, but in any assessment, details matter...details like An American Tail, details like Columbia's rejection of Night Skies ("A wimpy, Walt Disney movie"), details like his vociferous rejection of Temple of Doom's tone and content. Yes, details matter, and it must be added to the rest of the examined light work like E.T., The Twilight Zone and Gremlins. You created a fantasy--a premise built on lies and cherry picking the hell out of his career.

 

I imagine you will be the one "still going" soon enough.

 

[Poe Dameron]

So, the only movie you managed to add to the list of early-80s movies, after all your bluster and half a dozen invitations to add to the list, was a film that came out in 1986.

 

Think we're done here.

 

https://youtu.be/2YkEDGD_sDs?t=7m37s

 

Edit: Ah, I missed that you tried to put Gremlins back on the list as well despite it clearly subverting the types of movies you're railing against. How cute.