Any chance of a SE of 'POLTERGEIST'? It sure could use one. (1 Viewer)

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well, if you want to be accurate, Patrick, I think that E.T.'s evil twin is his up-coming War of the World's. From that teaser I saw during the superbowl, I think it's safe to say that Spielberg has officially said "bye, bye" to the notion of alien's being freindly.

 

[WillG]

I have to hold this one to a higher standard. There is just too much story with the production of Poltergeist for it to be acceptable on a bare bones DVD. If this film is not a candidate for a full blown SE, then, I can't name many others that are.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I understand that completely, Will, and I agree. However if it is not possible to get a SE, does that mean Warner should withhold the film itself indefinitly and never give it a proper restoration?

Restoring a film to pristine condition and giving it back to it's fans to preserve and enjoy should not be dependant on the amount of bells and whistles it may or may not contain.

 

[Ernest Rister]

I don't think Spielberg was mercenary or anything, mind you, just impolitic.

Here's some Poltergeist factoids:

*******

Letter to the Hollywood Reporter from Steven Spielberg to Tobe Hooper, dated June 8, 1982 (excerpt):

Regrettably, some of the press has misunderstood the rather unique, creative relationship which you and I shared throughout the making of "Poltergeist".

I enjoyed your openness in allowing me, as a producer and a writer, a wide berth for creative involvement, just as I know you were happy with the freedom you had to direct "Poltergeist" so wonderfully.

Through the screenplay, you accepted a vision of this very intense movie from the start, and as the director, you delivered the goods. You performed responsibly and professionally throughout, and I want to wish you great success on your next project.

Let's hope that "Poltergeist" brings as much pleasure to the general public as we experienced in our mutual effort.

Sincerely,

Steven Spielberg

***********

This letter was in response to questions in the press, questions raised ironically because of previous statements that Spielberg made in a press conference, bordering on taking authorship of the film.

The Director's Guild of America opened an investigation of the matter. Meanwhile Frank Marshall stepped into the fray and did not do much to clarify the issue:

"The creative force on the movie was Steven. Tobe was the director and was on the set every day. But Steven did the design for every storyboard and he was on set every day except for three days when he was in Hawaii with Lucas."
-- Los Angeles Times, interview with Dale Pollock

Now think about that. If Spielberg designed every storyboard, what exactly did Tobe Hooper do on the film, other than serve as a construction foreman getting Spielberg's work done for him?

Tobe Hooper did not lay down, and he challenged this assertion.

"...a threatened Hooper publicly challenged Spielberg's statements. 'I did fully half of the storyboards. I don't understand why any of these questions have to be raised.' He was literally fighting to hang on to his career, which he must have believed would soar after this major film opened; though the movie was indeed a huge hit, it nonetheless set into motion the decline of Hooper's briefly luminous Hollywood period. Spielberg, meanwhile, responded with uncharacteristic harshness. 'Tobe isn't what you'd call a take-charge sort of guy. He's just not a strong presence on a movie set. If a question was asked and an answer wasn't immediately forthcoming, I'd jump up and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that became the process of collaboration.'"
-- Douglas Brode, The Films of Steven Spielberg, pgs. 101-102

**********

And it is indeed true that Tobe Hooper was not involved with the post production. He turned in his director's cut of the film in early October of 1981, and Spielberg supervised post-production, including editing, scoring, the visual f/x, etc. According to Brode, it is true that there was "apparently" a clause in the E.T. contract that would not allow Spielberg to direct any other movie while working on E.T.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Very informative post, Ernest.

It seems strange that, if Spielberg wanted to direct Poltergeist and E.T. simulteaneously, it would surely have made more sense to have had Frank Marshall credited as director, but have Spielberg calling all the shots. Was it with regret that Hooper was hired? I doubt it. But it certainly seems like the patient, meditative Hooper was in the shadow of the fiery, dynamic Spielberg.

The situation sounds similar to Richard Marquand on Return of the Jedi. Technically, Marquand was way out of his element. He was an average director of actors and I suspect that he was hired simply because he was the only 'experienced' director that was available, as Lucas had left the Director's Guild of America and so he couldn't hire an American director and by the time that the production was due to begin, just about every experienced director in Britain was working on their own film. So the relatively unknown Richard Marquand was dragged from his bed at 4am. Marquand struggled with the scale of the film (and Ewoks) and all its technical considerations. Lucas ended up directing a few scenes, at least.

Poltergeist, for its time was truly groundbreaking: the effects hold up brilliantly to this day. It's one of the last great pre-CGI special-effects masterpieces. Directing actors around the elaborate set-ups must have been very taxing and draining. Poltergeist extended the limits of physical special effects that The Exorcist had set and the post=production ghost effects surpass those on Raiders of the Lost Ark. Hooper is a fine filmmaker - very visceral, yet intelligent - but there is no way he could have made Poltergeist on his own, while Spielberg lapped-up the Hawaiian sun. It was his story - he conceived it and it needed his eyes, mind and voice on the set. Just like Hawks on The Thing from Another World. Christian Nyby couldn't have done it on his own.

 

[Patrick H.]

Ernest, my prior post was based on those sections of that very same book. It's quite a good analysis, I must say, except for some observations which clearly point to the fact that Brode was watching a Pan & Scan copy of Jaws! Ack!

Oh, and I maintain that Poltergeist is E.T.'s evil twin. War of the Worlds is likely to be more the doppleganger to Close Encounters, if the trailers are anything to go by.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Yes but it was SPIELBERG's production. He conceived it, co-wrote it, produced it. POLTERGEIST was his baby. Hooper must have known what he was getting into -- this was Spielberg's show and the only reason he needed someone else directing was because of E.T. and everything else that was going on.

Judging on the basis of their two careers (especially since then), it's pretty clear who was really responsible for the success of the movie....which is one reason why we'll probably never get "the real story" as long as everyone is still alive and working.

 

[Joe:C]

Sorry to take this off topic again, but here is a pretty good story about the Twilight Zone incident. It even covers the trials that came later.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

If I remember right, wasn't a Special Edition actually announced a few years ago and then pulled before release?
There is big interst for this. Wonder why they don't want to make a bit of money.
I would like, at least, a commentary by the remaining cast members. Wonder what the boy looks like now?

Hope someone can mention this in the chat with WB.

 

[JoshuaB.]

Yes, a special edition was announced a few years ago, but TPTB quietly shelved plans--I think it was due to legal issues (the whole Hooper/Spielberg directing hoopla). I have the original MGM disc and would love to see a new transfer created for a new edition--it really needs one.

 

[oscar_merkx]

it certainly seems that everytime an early Spielberg film is released on dvd, there is always sometime going on to prevent its release.

 

[Matt-R]

I couldn't agree more. I've got my fingers crossed that some good news comes out of the chat.

I'd also like to see some of the deleted/alternate footage on the disc. There was quite a bit of stuff not used in the final film.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Really? Are these scenes listed somewhere?

 

[Joe:C]

It was mentioned in the chat that something was planned for the 25th anniversary. So does that mean we'll have to wait till 2007 for a SE? :frowning:

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Since 1982 + 25 = 2007, it sure looks that way...

 

[Felix Martinez]

In defense of the late Marquand, I recall Eye of the Needle being a fine film, and I hope to see this again on DVD. Marquand may have been out of his element as far as the large scale and special effects requirements of ROTJ.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Eye of the Needle is indeed a fine film. I'm sorry to say that I forgot Marquand directed it.

Great news about the plans for a SE of Poltergeist. I reckon it will be a October 2006 release - anniversary editions always seem to be released the year before the actual anniversary.

On the whole, I thought feel that the chat was good, but it was a bit hit and miss, with NO questions about Blade Runner (staggering) and the whole Tom and Jerry debacle not being addressed. I assumed those two shibbolithic problems would have been fully addressed. There's a 7-page thread on Blade Runner and the anger that the cut T&J shorts generated was as terrifying as Poltergeist!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

??? Not by my reckoning - I can't think of any that fall into that category...

 

[Felix Martinez]

I agree! In fact, as i was reading the chat, I was eyeing the scroll bar and wondering when Poltergeist and Blade Runner would come up. I was surprised it took that long for Poltergeist to be mentioned.