Jump to content

Steven Awalt

Members
  • Posts

    347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steven Awalt

  1. Looks like the interview only comes in frickin WMA format, which leaves Mac users out in the cold. I swear to God I am so fed up with Sony and Lucasfilm's marketing tactics. Last time I was stupid enough to be snookered into buying the album twice so I could get the extra track. This time, I'm just SOL all around. Now why is the record industry suffering? I'm going to ask outright, and I don't care about the legalities (since I'm paying for something I can't freaking acquire through Walmart anyway): can any PCs users rip this track and share it here with we Mac users who paid fair and square for the thing?
  2. It is official now as per the MPAA: "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge Of The Sith (2005) Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. PG-13 Rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and some intense images."
  3. Is the quote real, Joe? It's a great quote, but you've been known to put words into the mouths of famous people (and famous people into suitcases).
  4. Principal photography is already completed (over a week ago now), so it's feasible Williams could be starting to get to work if Spielberg and Michael Kahn have sequences already locked in.
  5. You should really see "The Sugarland Express," "Jaws," "Close Encounters," "E.T.," "Empire of the Sun," "Schindler's List "or "Saving Private Ryan" again if you don't think emotional realism is amongst Spielberg's strong suits. A couple of classic examples: "Jaws": the beautiful father and son scene. Have come home to my children after bad days, I can tell you that nothing gets more real than the emotion of this scene. It hits home. "Close Encounters": the Neary family falling apart when Roy has his breakdown in the bath. I don't know if it's just because I came from a jacked up family, but this scene brings tears to my eyes every time, and I bet there are many out there who feel the same. This new "War" trailer has me very excited about the characters in "War." There is some very tangible character here: Ray is obviously a mess: he couldn't hold it together as a father or a husband, he likely didn't live his dream of working with cars (he tools around with them in his spare time, but he's a dock worker just making ends meet by the looks of the environment he lives in.) My main concern (and hope) is that Koepp delivers on the characters since realistic emotions aren't his strong suit. Give Spielberg the material though, and he's got the chops and he's more than proved it.
  6. A very interesting topic/post, and well thought and written to boot, Figo, but I'm here to tell you that it's not a complete picture of film history in the 1970s/80s, nor of Steven Spielberg as a filmmaker (imho). Too many people whitewash the past and far too many people whitewash Spielberg as a filmmaker post-1982. To take things one by one: The late 1970s and 1980s did have some great optimistic films, perhaps overly optimistic in a lot of ways, but we also had a heck of a lot of "nasty" films too that reflected societal concerns. Despite the popular notion that America under Reagan was filled with all gung-ho can do feelings, let's not forget things that were going on back then. We had energy crises, terrorism (people tend to forget how terrible it was in the late 70s/80s with all the plane hijackings), corruption in government (the travesties of Watergate and Vietnam followed us into the early eighties), social unrest and important fights for equality, highly dangerous drugs spreading in to youth culture, disease (AIDS in particular) and the biggest shadow looming over it all?the threat of nuclear annihilation. If anything, we could say a big thread in the cinema of the time willfully chose to ignore these problems, but there was also plenty of cinema to address them head on or through fantasy cinema (I'm thinking of films as diverse as Apocalypse Now, Silkwood, The Terminator, etc.) Now on to Spielberg: I think he unfairly acquired that whole Peter Pan syndrome in the press (and at his own hand in ways, honestly) post-E.T., but if we really look at his films, there has always been a nasty streak running hand-in-hand with his optimistic side. That's what I've always loved about him. In a film like Jaws, we see the corruption in our politicians (people don't see how topical this part of Jaws was nowadays, but it was obviously in the forefront of people's minds coming two years off of Watergate), and the brutality of nature, and yet we see the strength of good people standing up against adversity and how this goodness can win out. We see the same thing throughout Spielberg's filmography: Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders (although technically Indy loses in the end!), Poltergeist, E.T., Temple of Doom, on and on in nearly every film. There's always been a good balanced sense of strong darkness and light in Spielberg's films and to deny this and think that "War" is a big change doesn't seem inclusive of the whole picture. War looks to be another riff on the same song Spielberg's been singing for decades. Beyond thematic adversity, another thing people tend to overlook (again, post E.T.) is that Spielberg has always had a nasty sense of the macabre. People who were surprised by the grotesquery of Temple of Doom, Jurassic Park, Minority Report, etc. always make me shake my head in wonder. Where were these people when heads, limbs and torso were being torn asunder in Jaws? Where were they when Nazis were kissing propellors, doubling as black top, or just plain old exploding/melting in Raiders? Where were they when tumorous steaks and maggoty chicken legs were on the menu in Poltergeist (not to mention the after meal snack of Marty tearing his face apart in the mirror?all shocks crafted and in the case of Marty's face, physically executed by Spielberg himself!) The shocks in Spielberg's modern and so-called "dark" films are not surprising to me when looking back at the historical precedent sent by Spielberg and his obvious penchant for gore and grue. Spielberg has been terrifying and edifying audiences with cinematic violence and tension since Duel, so I don't think the destruction we're going to witness in War of the Worlds will be any new development in his oeuvre. It's definitely not a play to win over critics (does anyone honestly think Spielberg gives a hang about winning over critics at this point, if he ever did?I think he'd rather win audiences). It's fair to say it could be a reflection of the times, or more importantly, a reflection of how the times have affected Spielberg as an individual and an artist, but an adaptation of War has been brewing in Spielberg's mind for decades. For those who think Spielberg is moving into new and trendy territory on the basis of the niceties in CE3K and E.T., now might be a good time to go back and look at Spielberg's filmography through a different set of eyes. If you look for the dark, it's certainly on display in his films. It's been there all along, an intrinsic bedfellow with the light in his films. War will prove no different.
  7. Have to bring up one more point from the old WOTW thread of infinite paranoia: Roald, your last response made me laugh out-loud. Perfect witty capper to all the insanity! And I love the pictures that we've seen for the film so far (responding to comments of suckitude from above). I've seen folks all around the Internet complaining about the fact that we've seen no aliens, hardware, etc. We've seen no more than 6-7 photos from the film so far, a film that is still four months away. Nothing like kicking delayed gratification out of bed from the get-go. Me, I'd rather wait to have some horrifying reveal of the aliens when I see the film. The pictures we've seen so far are great (imho), since there's a lot of emotion in them, I'm getting painfully curious to see just what the hell Mr. Cruise is so awed and terrified of. What ever happened to the tease (and the audiences' love of it)? Folks want the full monty from the get go nowadays. I bet if we had the Web when CE3K and E.T. came out, we'd have had the same kind of "it sucks" comments flying left and right.
  8. I just came here to post that and collect my apologies and praise of my superior reporting skills Be sure not to knock anyone over as you make your way to the from of the line, Roald.
  9. The plan all along was to shoot and release "Vengeance" in about a six month window. If you think about the project, it's not a far-fetched concept. The film will (possibly) be shot down and dirty?a quick, documentary-esque rush of a production through Europe and possibly Israel that could likely be captured in 55-70 days (judging on the average time of quick Spielberg shoots in the past). The film will likely have minimal visual effects (perhaps a number of digital matte paintings or corrections to make scenics reflect the 1970s look of locales, although clever shooting and set dressing could help achieve all this in-camera). As always, Michael Kahn will be editing furiously as Spielberg shoots. The kernel of this was what was planned out last year before the screenplay got turned around for re-writes. If the script is complete by this spring, it's not improbable that Spielberg could do as he did in 1993 and launch right into "Vengeance" after a big budget effects picture. When you consider "Vengeance" up against "War's" insane schedule, it's not as hard to believe either. "War," Spielberg's biggest effects picture ever, is going from production to screens in a little over eight dynamite months (not as insane as it sounds when people stop to realize that the film was in pre-production for at least two-and-a-half years, a nice head start). If Spielberg can take his biggest effects behemoth to release in eight months, I could see him bringing a presumably low-budget drama in at a fraction of that time. Now whether or not this would leave room for "Lincoln" in January 2006, who knows. Perhaps he'll finish "War" and take a breather while he preps "Lincoln" for the winter shoot. Wouldn't it be amazing though to see him pull off all three films in a row, and wouldn't be more amazing if they are all solid work if not potential masterpieces? And in case I didn't mention it before, John Williams is scoring "War of the Worlds."
  10. I hope my theory proves true, but I'd hold off on believing it or the "Memoirs" rumor until we get a bit more info. It's all conjecture based on a rumor and Variety's production schedule. Last official word was that the "Vengeance" script was still being rewritten, so a lot depends on Spielberg's satisfaction with the script and with post-production on "War of the Worlds." There's great precedent (1993) that he could move from "War" directly into "Vengeance" in June, insane as it may sound, but nothings more than rumor so far. Hope it's one rumor that proves to be true though. Then again (as I regularly mention on my site) it can all go to hell if George Lucas suddenly pushes a certain script into production...
  11. So people are worried because imdb.com doesn't confirm something? Either this is a joke or I'm in a Bizarro forum. There is one slim possibility that this could be true?if Spielberg plans to have a second film released in December, then perhaps he's retaining Williams' services for his film as director and not executive-producer. There is a possibility that we could still see "Vengeance" in December of this year, as it was supposed shoot/release last year. The film is currently slated for a June 1, 2005 production start date. Last year, Spielberg's personal PR rep told me that the plan was to shoot the film in the late spring/early summer for a December release. If Spielberg is able to finish "War" and jump into "Vengeance" by June as planned, it's not inconceivable that we could have the film in the last week of December (the 25th or that Friday, most likely). With the announcement of Lincoln for a January 2006 production start, there's no word on what the heck is going on at this point. But it's a sound potential theory if there's any truth in the "Memoirs" rumors from that Spanish forum.
  12. The "Flying" theme from "E.T." in any incarnation?the film's Halloween sequence, the concert piece, it's all beautiful and my single favorite piece of music ever composed.
  13. I'm not even sure why I bother to post this again (considering some people here won't be satisfied until they see Williams' name in the credits on the film June 29), but I can't see Williams' involvement with "War' being anymore official. The production itself confirmed it and Williams is now listed on Variety's production roster as being on the picture (not conclusive in itself, but secondary proof following the production's confirmation). I think elsewhere on these very boards, someone said Williams management also confirmed his contract on the picture. I don't understand why this is still an issue with some people! I would assume it would take one hell of a problem with ROTS to keep Williams from scoring a Spielberg picture, especially one he's been confirmed as having a contractual agreement on.
  14. There's no way in hell that thing is real. It originated as one of the DreamWorks fansite's patented "exclusives" and has spread to a few less than discerning sites that would believe that amateurish garbage is real. If that's the best Sony would do for even early key art, they might as well close the project down now.
  15. I know you're kidding, Neil, but for those who would still not believe it, the publicist referred to Mr. Williams as "John" (I merely say Williams as a sign of respect and deference I've never had the pleasure of meeting him.) It'll be interesting to see if we get any serious reactions like the one you comically posted though...reading all of the panic was driving me frickin' nuts?the core reason why I finally broke down and wrote to ask this possibly inane question of the production.
  16. I just received direct confirmation from the "War of the Worlds" unit publicist that Williams is "definitely" on the film. Like many of you here I wouldn't have believed differently until I heard, but some of the talk here was freaking me out so I wanted to know stat. I'm sending this info into Ricard in a minute so everyone can put it in the bank. Between Williams' agent and the key publicist on the film, I think all doubts should be vanquished now.
  17. Clearly I'm not saying that no one could play a role that they are not, Josh500?I made a specfic point to say that if an actor is right for a role, they should play it regardless (maybe you missed that point tripping over yourself to be sarcastic over my post that you obviously didn't read too closely), but as Morlock pointed out so well, the characters and their nationalities are essential to this story. Again, I wonder how the Asian film going populace (particularly Japan in this case) will take to this film considering.
  18. Well, that makes me feel a bit silly. Well, then, I have no clue about the music. It'll be good, that's all I know... or hope. ~Conor I wouldn't feel too silly since the production has curiously cast Chinese women in the lead roles of Japanese women. I really wonder how this film will play in Asia, since most Asians clearly know the difference between Chinese and Japanese persons, unlike we Americans. Then again, if a person's good for a role, they ought to play it, but I couldn't help but be miffed if I were a talented Japanese actress who lost the role to a Chinese woman who will portray a Japanese.
  19. "Hook" does have one good (though not great) moment of darkness and suspense: when the children are "hook-napped" and when the adults come home to find them missing.
  20. And I'd gladly watch "1941" any day, flaws and all, over "Hook." Most days, I think I'd rather go to the dentist or a proctologist than watch "Hook," as much as it pains me to say that.
  21. This is not accurate to say at all. "1941" was never written as a musical, nor was "Hook." In the case of "1941," Spielberg second-guessed himself after the fact and said he should have done the film as a musical (something he likely thought of during the production, perhaps), but the screenplay by Zemeckis and Gale was not written as a musical. "Hook," again, was not written as a musical either. At one point, the concept of reconfiguring Hart's screenplay into a musical was a serious consideration (grafting on songs from the un-produced Williams/Spielberg "Peter Pan" musical, but the script for "Hook," as developed by Nick Castle and Jim Hart and written by Hart (plus a number of other second-stringers) was not written as a musical. So to base an argument on the fact that the movies "fall apart" like a house of cards due to being gutted musicals isn't fair or correct. I'd say that the real problem, particularly in the case of "Hook," is that Spielberg (for one of the few times in his career) seems like he didn't havea clear conception of what he was after with the film. Both movies come across tonally and narratively unbalanced, but not because they were at one time written as musicals.
  22. Obviously a joke, right Joe? I love "The Return of the Great Adventure." What promise! "65 million years in the making" is another bold statement of the thrills and craftsman ship that lie within the film too. "We are not alone" has my vote for the best of them all though. Mystery, intrigue, potential threat, it's all there, and when you couple it with the mysterious road in the key art, it's an incredible bit of advertising.
  23. Actually, that article is a transcript of the entire segment (guess I won't have to transcribe it after all). It was brief, but enjoyable, as the text points out.
  24. I'm very sorry I wasn't able to post this before the bit was on, but John Williams was on CBS on the Early Show (or some such title). I'll see if I can transcribe his comments for the board here today so people who didn't catch it can read what Mr. Williams said. The interview was about the Kennedy Center Honor (which CBS will be broadcasting next week?hence the CBS interview).
  25. And I'd avoid that Baxter bio on Spielberg like the plague. He may have been right on the point you mention, but for everything he gets right he's got 10 errors or lies to make up for it.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.