Poltergeist SE (1 Viewer)

[Mike_Richardson]

Agreed, the situation on the two movies isn't the same at all. The "Poltergeist Curse" rubbish probably has nothing to do with this release being held up -- the shoot went just fine as memory serves, and the issues of the sequels and the later deaths of other cast members is just totally irrelevant.

BTW I love it when Julian Beck's name gets thrown around as part of the "Curse". The guy was, what, in his 80s when he died? LOL.

The only thing that's a source of controversy, or at least the problem in terms of producing honest or noteworthy supplements, is the director issue.

It's obvious Spielberg was heavily involved, we all know that, to a very large degree, and it's quite possible we'll never get a supplemental set that goes into detail on that front while all the participants are still alive and kicking -- or at least unwilling to talk about it. And it's possible there IS some bad blood still there...no matter what politically-correct statements Spielberg released at the time of the film's release, look at where Hooper's career went after the film's release (he had one big budget film that bombed and his career continued to sink over the years since). Maybe there's still something there that would lead one or the other -- or both -- to just not want to talk about it.

Without that, it's likely difficult to make a truly revealing documentary on the making of the film...but since this set continuously gets rumored and then delayed, it's possible folks don't want to discuss it.

But I still would've lived with a new HD transfer, the trailers, original featurette and some deleted scenes...even if we don't get a full-fledged doc that'd certainly be better than nothing for now.

Hopefully Warner's will follow through and at least give us that, if they can't give us a truly in-depth Special Edition.

 

[WillG]

Any already terminally ill when he signed on for the role IIRC

 

[TravisR]

Personally, I'd like to see more features on this disc but I'm glad that they're not wasting time on the non-existent Poltergeist 'curse'. Having a featurette on that is the same as having a featurette on the guy who hung himself in the background of The Wizard Of Oz or the ghost that you can see in Three Men And A Baby- it just propels a dumb urban legend.

 

[Patrick H.]

Oh, I agree that the situation between the films wasn't at all the same...shooting 'Poltergeist' didn't get anybody killed. What I meant by the production going awry was just that Spielberg's involvement on the film was raising questions even while it was filming. Visitors to the set were puzzled as to who was really in charge, the DGA got concerned, and Spielberg had to publish an open letter to Hooper in Variety to defuse the situation. Compare this to his other productions from the 80s, even ones he wrote like 'The Goonies', where he basically provided the directors a creative umbrella to do their own thing.

And I also agree that the "curse" is total BS, but losing two young cast members within a couple of years of the film still wouldn't be an easy thing to address in an interview.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I guess it's a debate but I'd say horror fans will remember Hooper for TCM and not this film since this film isn't as big in some horror communities. On the other hand, do people really think he directed this film? I've seen the majority of both director's work and to me, this looks, feels and smells like Spielberg.

 

[TravisR]

Overall, I agree with you but I think rumor makes it sound like Hooper did nothing but sit there while Speilberg directed the entire movie. I think the reality is that the movie is essentially co-directed by the two of them. When Speilberg 'suggested' a way to do a scene that he felt was better than Hooper's idea, I'm sure Hooper would listen to him since Speilberg's the boss, has more experience (especially with special effects) and is more talented but at the same time, I don't think Speilberg was doing that with every scene.

 

[Kevin M]

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Haven't you seen the vintage Making Of featurette which shows Spielberg directing the movie, instructing actors and setting up the shots...while Hooper does nothing but sit there in the backdrop, saying nothing?

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Oh I think it's much more than a "myth." Just watch the above featurette I referenced and tell me who isn't doing what in that footage...not saying the whole movie was like that, but I believe Spielberg DID helm portions of it himself when his schedule permitted.

And just because Spielberg issued a politically-correct PR release to "clarify" the situation doesn't confirm or deny anything IMO. I think the movie speaks for itself in terms of who brought what creatively to the picture.

There probably isn't a lot of "bad blood" between them, but it probably is a sore subject that nobody really wants to speak of.

Besides, it's not as if Spielberg was around on the set of TAKEN or for an episode of AMAZING STORIES like he was on POLTERGEIST.

It's not like they were ever working "together" on those projects -- and from all indications Spielberg had little if anything to do creatively with AMAZING STORIES by the time it ended its second season...and Hooper's (hideous) episode was the last one that was produced.

 

[TravisR]

That featurette doesn't show the entire movie being shot. I've already said that I think the movie was co-directed but that still means that they both had a hand in directing it.

The featurette is going to use footage with Speilberg directing before they'd show footage of Tobe Hooper directing. In 1981/2, Steven Speilberg has a string of huge hits and is probably the most famous director since Alfred Hitchcock. Tobe Hooper, on the other hand, is a guy most people have never seen before and have only seen one of his movies. Based purely on fame, footage of Speilberg getting a cup of coffee probably would have made the featurette before footage of Hooper directing did.

 

[Patrick H.]

That's always the impression I've had. As I understand it, Spielberg had always intended to direct 'Poltergeist' from its inception, but his contract for 'E.T.' didn't allow him to direct any other projects concurrently. So he hired Hooper based on his 'Texas Chainsaw' reputation. Whether he intended on remaining as involved with the production as he did, I don't know, but clearly it made everybody uneasy when the "Spielberg's really directing this one" stories started circulating.

 

[WillG]

And for all anyone knows, Hooper knew of this situation and knew that Speilberg was going to be a major presence in the making of the film.

Also, the featurette that was mentioned in the last few posts where Spielber is shown essentially directing is supposedly going to be included in the new DVD. So that means the "controversy" is, in fact, showing up on the DVD (unless this featurette is the reason that we have not seen an announcement yet)

 

[Michael Elliott]

I don't think Spielberg was calling all the shots but I do believe he was whispering in Hooper ear the whole time. If Hooper did something on his own Spielberg would call him to the side and tell Hooper how he'd direct it. Then Hooper would go back and do it that way.

This guy who did interview Spielberg said that the only thing the director would say about the movie is that he learned a lot about being a producer and he learned what a producer should and shouldn't do. Hooper's career was over by the time Taken was being filmed so perhaps Spielberg just felt like he owed him something? As it turned out, Hooper's episode was the best one.

 

[Kevin M]

Point being that if there was "bad blood" between them in the 80's then why would Spielberg hire him for Amazing Stories at all?
It is to this very day just a load of rumors never once verified by anyone connected with the film in any way...or not connected with the film for that matter.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

What it all comes down to is that Poltergeist is brilliantly designed, photographed and edited, is very, very scary and features very good performances. Who directed what or who was in control doesn't really matter in this case, as the end result was magnificent.

 

[Travis Brashear]

So when a film is realized magnificently, it's not important who was responsible???

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Boy, I worked that statement badly! What I wanted to say was that if the movie had turned out flawed, then we would have to look to why the interfering and fighting started and who was to blame, but as it turned out great, it maybe isn't worth beating ourselves to death over for 25 years. I see it as a Spielberg "project" where his best collaborators worked together to create what was, at the time, a unique and groundbreaking film with Hooper on the set as director, primarily due to Spielberg not being allowed by the DGA to be engaged in directing two films simultaneously. Hooper has - or had - a great eye for detail and knew how to create powerful atmospheres and so he was a good choice. But Spielberg got carried away and appeared on set too much in between shooting E.T., which I imagine was shot during the day, as there are kids in every scene and Poltergeist was shot at night mostly, right, allowing him to clandestinely drop in, though not allowing him much sleep, I imagine.

The madhouse that is IMDb does not list Spielberg as an uncredited director, though that must have been submitted countless time by his rabit fans: see here.

However, The Train (1964, John Frankenheimer) lists Arthur Penn (a fine director) as uncredited director, even though he barely shot a day's footage that was never used in any case: see here. I have tried to remove this credit as it must mislead lots of people.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Is this still coming in October or not ?????????????????

 

[Ruben Rivera]

there might be hope after all...

on videobusiness.com in the blogs section, there is a column by the managing editor, Samantha Clark, about the 25th anniversary edition. It has a small picture of the cover art posted.

 

[Patrick H.]

Thank the Maker!

Whatever the extras, I'll be thrilled just to see the new transfer.