Sign in to follow this  
Disco Stu

SPIELBERG, Upcoming HBO documentary

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

That's not the point. Everyone know's Spielberg isn't short of cash. But he says it wouldn't have been a challenge, and would have been a slam dunk.  Yes, that's a pretty douchey way to describe himself, especially since what he said isn't a given. 

 

I think you may be misinterpreting his words. It's more that it provides no artistic challenge for him, personally. He's not interested in cashing in on already existing cash cows this way. HARRY POTTER was already a phenomenon before the first movie was ever announced. He's adapted popular books before, of course, but not like this. So I can perfectly well understand his sentiment. It's better to pick the projects that appeal and challenge you on a personal level.

 

There's absolutely nothing "douchey" about this. It's just common sense. He's not saying "I would have made this absolutely brilliant", he's saying "there is nothing here that triggers me, and I'm not interested in adapting something that is set to be a success because of the book's popularity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you will find it is you who are mistaken Thor. About a great many things. Your interpretation of what Spielberg said is pretty rose coloured. And there was no guarantee that just because the books were popular that they'd work as films (and they wouldn't have if Spielberg had his way). It was far from inevitable at the time. And yes, he said making the movie would have been a "slam dunk" for him and wouldn't present a challenge....and would have made a billion dollars. There's no other reasonable way to interpret that other than he thinks making the film, and making it a huge success, would have been easy.  Which is absolutely bullshit given his terrible ideas on how to adapt it.  There's no way an animated film, especially what he had in mind, would have made the billion that Columbus's film ended up making.  I actually think he went on to make TinTin (barely broke even...franchise dead) and BFG (lost money) because he regretted dropping the ball on Harry Potter.

 

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where someone here said Spielberg hasn't made a good film in 20 years. Or that he's "too old."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes me wonder what the next Harry Potter will be? A new cultural phenomenon with such mass appeal, its cultural influence and significance transcends it's own medium and becomes embedded into the public consciousness. Harry Potter achieved that, Star Wars is still running with it. The Hunger Games maybe, but that was never quite as huge as HP, and its teen dystopian copycats have died a quick death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baby Jane Hudson said:

Makes me wonder what the next Harry Potter will be? A new cultural phenomenon with such mass appeal, its cultural influence and significance transcends it's own medium and becomes embedded into the public consciousness. Harry Potter achieved that, Star Wars is still running with it. The Hunger Games maybe, but that was never quite as huge as HP, and its teen dystopian copycats have died a quick death.

 

Well, with Stranger Things and "It" being huge wild successes, Stephen King/Speilbergian 80s nostalgia is having a moment.  Ready Player One will fit into that slot too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Disco Stu said:

 

Well, with Stranger Things and "It" being huge wild successes, Stephen King/Speilbergian 80s nostalgia is having a moment.  Ready Player One will fit into that slot too.

 

Ehh those will come and go. And they're more just cash-ins on nostalgia, which has been a thing for the last decade.

 

No, SW and HP are institutions. We might not see another one of those for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game of Thrones is close for the moment, but as much as I love that series, and the books, I'm not convinced it will have the same staying power as HP or SW. It's a pop culture phenomenon, to be sure, but such things can be fickle and I think among the general public the GOT mania will fade once the series ends.

 

SW and HP are here to say though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nick1066 said:

Game of Thrones is close for the moment, but as much as I love that series, and the books, I'm not convinced it will have the same staying power as HP or SW. It's a pop culture phenomenon, to be sure, but such things can be fickle and I think among the general public the GOT mania will fade once the series ends.

 

SW and HP are here to say though.

 

Yeah, the key differentiating factor is that GoT is aimed at adults and SW/HP at children.  Things people fell in love with as children tend to become the institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Baby Jane Hudson said:

Could it be Marvel? Is that the "institution" I'm thinking of?

 

They're certainly planning on keeping the MCU alive for decades to come.  Time will tell if audiences allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nick1066 said:

I believe you will find it is you who are mistaken Thor. About a great many things. Your interpretation of what Spielberg said is pretty rose coloured.

 

Nobody is "mistaken" here. We're just interpreting the statement differently. I don't agree with your interpretation. I think it's more a reflection of his own view on projects that trigger him than any kind of arrogant statement that success was guaranteed, because he's the best director who ever lived. That's a too cynical way to look it. Again, I urge you to watch the documentary, where he goes into some of this.

 

Quote

And I'm still waiting for you to show me where someone here said Spielberg hasn't made a good film in 20 years. Or that he's "too old."

 

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody said that. It was my way of expressing the type of "mood" I often see in these discussions. It was fairly obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall seeing an interview a few years ago in which Spielberg indeed talked about passing up on Harry Potter, because it was "shooting ducks in a barrel". He was simply being matter of fact about it. He was being light-hearted and he was quite animated in how he conveyed it, as he can be. He didn't come off as arrogant in the slightest, the man wasn't "showing off".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just put the quote above. Here it is again:

 

Quote

"I purposely didn't do the Harry Potter movie because for me, that was shooting ducks in a barrel. It's just a slam dunk. It's just like withdrawing a billion dollars and putting it into your personal bank accounts. There's no challenge."

 

This is just wrong, because he's suggesting that doing HP would have been easy for him, and it would have been wildly successful. And I'm saying his other attempts along these lines (i.e. TinTin and especially BFG) demonstrated that going back to such familiar territory isn't as natural, or easy, for Spielberg as he suggested it would be.

 

And yeah, saying there's "no challenge" in adapting a book like Harry Potter is frankly sort of an arrogant thing to say. Especially given at the time he had no idea how to do it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this