The Steven Spielberg Thread (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

I read (listened) to RP1 loved the book and didn’t quite love the movie but did really enjoy it.

 

[TravisR]

But still not a bad film in the bunch. That says something!

Yep. Even a movie that I don't particularly enjoy like The Lost World has a couple of really excellent sequences in it that most directors couldn't do as well on their best day.

 

[benbess]

...Instant All-Time Favorites and Frequent Rewatches:
-Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull....

Probably you've talked about this elsewhere, but what makes Crystal Skull a favorite? The fact that it's so over-the-top?

 

[benbess]

We know Bullitt starring Bradley Cooper is Spielberg's next movie, although there's a long of history of Spielberg movies that looked like they were about to be made but were abandoned....

Steven Spielberg's unrealized projects - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After two money losing movies in a row, with West Side Story and The Fabelmans, we can guess that Spielberg and his backers would like a hit.

But what genre of movie or specific stories would you hope that he might make after Bullitt?

Spielberg's sci fi movies are some of my favorites, and all have been hits so far, and so I'd like to see another Spielberg sci fi movie.

I love Spielberg's historical epics, almost all of which have been successful relative to their production budgets. Any topic he'd be interested in I'd like to see.

The Spielberg-produced Masters of the Air, which is about World War II in the air over Europe, is set to come out on Apple TV in 2023:

Masters of the Air - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Masters of the Air - About the Series | Amblin

Based on the compelling non-fiction book by Donald L. Miller, "Masters of the Air" follows the true, deeply personal story of an American bomber squadron in World War II who brought the war to Hitler’s doorstep.

amblin.com

Here's a tragic topic from the ancient world that as far as I know has been neglected, except for the 1981 miniseries Masada. This topic is also so big it would seem to need a miniseries.

The Jewish War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spielberg has said he's like to do a Western, and I'd like to see that, although those aren't known as sure-fire box office. What about the possibility of a Western for Netflix?

 

[Tino]

What about the possibility of a Western for Netflix?

From Spielberg? Zero.

 

[Bryan^H]

My favorite Steven Spielberg movies:

1: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

2: Jaws

3: Raiders of the Lost Ark

4: Jurassic Park

5. E.T.

6. Saving Private Ryan

7. Amblin

8. Duel

That is pretty much it. I'll never rewatch the other films of his again. Nothing against them, but they didn't do much for me.

 

[Bryan^H]

A.I. (2) My wife’s favorite Spielberg movie

I think this is a terribly depressing movie. And I still think it should have been Stanley Kubrick's last film before he asked Steven Spielberg to take over.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Probably you've talked about this elsewhere, but what makes Crystal Skull a favorite? The fact that it's so over-the-top?

I don’t find it to be any more or less over the top than the other Indy films, actually. The only real difference I perceive between the first three and that one is that since it’s set in the 1950s instead of the 30s, some of the storytelling and stylistic choices emulate the films of the 50s, just the way the first three were emulating films of the 30s. I like the way the real world passage of time between films was built into it. That all worked for me - I’m not sure if I would have liked the movie as much if they would have pretended no time had passed or made another 30s pastiche. It’s actually my second favorite Indy movie, but there’s not a wide gulf between any of those films for me - I love them all.

I don’t find the fridge to be any more or less implausible than surviving a plane crash on an inflatable raft

 

[Malcolm R]

Or the mine car chase, also from Temple (talk about OTT).

 

[Robert Saccone]

After two money losing movies in a row, with West Side Story and The Fabelmans, we can guess that Spielberg and his backers would like a hit.

Wow Fabelmans is already considered a money loser? I hadn’t got the chance to go seeing this weekend so I hope it sticks around.

 

[Malcolm R]

With a reported budget of $40 million and an opening weekend gross of $2.2 million, it's a fairly safe assumption. It would need to make more than $100 million to approach break-even territory.

The per-screen average wasn't awful, but it was only on 638 screens. Not very "wide" for a wide release, especially a Spielberg film, but I don't see it making any large increases in the coming weeks.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

With a reported budget of $40 million and an opening weekend gross of $2.2 million, it's a fairly safe assumption. It would need to make more than $100 million to approach break-even territory.

As more of an existential comment on the industry rather than a criticism of the film itself (which I really enjoyed), I wish the industry would take some steps towards addressing this issue.

We need a better system than one where films need to gross 2.5x their budgets just to break even. That is an ongoing, long term, huge problem that sinks the viability of most films before they even have a chance to go before audiences. $100 million is a ridiculous bar for smaller, lower budget quiet dramas to have to clear to justify their existence, particularly when you add a secondary expectation that the films should clear that bar in only about ten days.

Digital distribution was supposed to help with this. Sending a digital file to theaters either on a hard drive or via satellite as an encrypted download was supposed to cost significantly less than making hundreds or thousands of film prints. Digital billboards and online advertising was supposed to be cheaper than physically erecting billboards in locations. And yet, the costs seemingly keep rising.

 

[Tino]

$100 million is a ridiculous bar for smaller, lower budget quiet dramas to have to clear

I doubt break even is 2.5x budget for smaller films with less advertising. Probably 1.5-2x. Still your overall points are valid.

 

[WillG]

As more of an existential comment on the industry rather than a criticism of the film itself (which I really enjoyed), I wish the industry would take some steps towards addressing this issue.

We need a better system than one where films need to gross 2.5x their budgets just to break even. That is an ongoing, long term, huge problem that sinks the viability of most films before they even have a chance to go before audiences. $100 million is a ridiculous bar for smaller, lower budget quiet dramas to have to clear to justify their existence, particularly when you add a secondary expectation that the films should clear that bar in only about ten days.

Digital distribution was supposed to help with this. Sending a digital file to theaters either on a hard drive or via satellite as an encrypted download was supposed to cost significantly less than making hundreds or thousands of film prints. Digital billboards and online advertising was supposed to be cheaper than physically erecting billboards in locations. And yet, the costs seemingly keep rising.

Agreed, the idea that a relatively inexpensive film at 40m (and I know that figure doesn’t include A&P, but this movie seems light on that as well) has to make 100m just to break even does seem pretty absurd and makes me wonder how film is even a viable business, but I suppose Star Wars, MCU, Mission Impossible and the occasional sleeper hit (The Sixth Sense, A Quiet Place etc.) keep it afloat

 

[benbess]

As more of an existential comment on the industry rather than a criticism of the film itself (which I really enjoyed), I wish the industry would take some steps towards addressing this issue.

We need a better system than one where films need to gross 2.5x their budgets just to break even. That is an ongoing, long term, huge problem that sinks the viability of most films before they even have a chance to go before audiences. $100 million is a ridiculous bar for smaller, lower budget quiet dramas to have to clear to justify their existence, particularly when you add a secondary expectation that the films should clear that bar in only about ten days.

Digital distribution was supposed to help with this. Sending a digital file to theaters either on a hard drive or via satellite as an encrypted download was supposed to cost significantly less than making hundreds or thousands of film prints. Digital billboards and online advertising was supposed to be cheaper than physically erecting billboards in locations. And yet, the costs seemingly keep rising.

As a big Spielberg fan since 1977, I'm very glad The Fabelmans, which is one of my top ten movies of 2022, was made. But Spielberg himself halfway jokingly described the movie on NPR's Fresh Air as "$40 million of therapy."



Probably advertising and overhead add at least $20 million to the cost of the movie, and maybe more. Given that theaters keep roughly half of the box office, it probably would need to gross at least $100 million to break even—and that would be counting on the fact that blu-ray sales and other home video revenue will add several more million dollars.

Josh wants a better system, but I don't really see what that would be.

Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBOmax, Apple, and other streamers like that already offer a place for a prestige director's personal movies that might have less commercial potential in the theaters. These movies can still get a short theatrical release in select theaters. Spielberg has long said he's a great admirer of the old studio system, where directors often made a movie every year. Freed from box office worries, I'd like to see Spielberg's personal dream projects get made at a rapid pace.

According to Spielberg's interview with the NY Times, he is seemingly considering streaming for a future movie:

"....We want theaters to stay open. By the same token, and speaking very honestly, I made “The Post” [about the Pentagon Papers] as a political statement about our times by reflecting the Nixon administration, and we thought that was an important reflection for a lot of people to understand what was happening to our country. I don’t know if I had been given that script post-pandemic whether I would have preferred to have made that film for Apple or Netflix and gone out to millions of people. Because the film had something to say to millions of people, and we were never going to get those millions of people into enough theaters to make that kind of difference. Things have changed enough to get me to say that to you...."

Steven Spielberg Gets Personal (Published 2022)

In making his autobiographical film “The Fabelmans,” he confronted some painful family secrets, as well as what it means to be Jewish in America today.

www.nytimes.com

PS With most of Spielberg's previous prestige productions the box office has been good relative to costs. The Post is an example....

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Josh wants a better system, but I don't really see what that would be.

Nor do I.

I don’t want every prestige film to instead be a six part limited series on premium cable or streaming, but it asks a lot of an audience to expect them to see each new movie within its first ten days or so, lest the theaters dump it and move on to the next thing. Nor can I blame theaters for doing that; under the terms of Universal’s contract with studios, films that underperform like this one can go to streaming in something like 17 days - why should theaters be forced to show something indefinitely that audiences aren’t showing up for?

It just seems like we’re stuck in this race to the bottom where filmmakers are being asked to deliver impossible results and audiences are being asked to drop everything to see a movie right away, and that seems unfair on both ends.

But I’m stumped when it comes to finding a solution.

 

[Carl David]

I personally find Spielberg an enigma in some ways. At his best he is one of the most talented brilliant directors in the history of cinema.

Some movies are stinkers that lack any originality and full of propaganda and leave me scratching my head.

But I think this could be down to the more sinister side of Hollywood.

In my opinion, he makes movies for the studios in a Faustian bargain that then allows him to make one of his own with full creative control. Most directors in Hollywood do this by the looks of things. Martin Scorsese has commented on this in relation to his own career in a documentary I saw which I can't remember what is was called. It was about film directors and he was talking about some that are "smugglers" who sneak their own views into a movie without the studios knowing etc.

Some perhaps make all their movies as a director for hire.

The thing that comes across with Spielberg is you can tell he loves and appreciates cinema. Whenever you hear him talk on his movies it is evident he has a vast knowledge of film including actors and camera lenses and other things revolving around cinema.

For me, Duel is an absolute gem. A piece of cinematic magic and what everything cinema should be. A visual spectacle with hardly any dialogue throughout the movie but it is totally engrossing that keeps you on edge as you will on David Mann in trying to escape the psychopathic truck driver which by the end gets you hoping for his demise. The build up of tension between the characters and the feeling of anxiety the movie exerts on the viewer is masterful.

He pulls this off by almost images alone although the sound effects are excellent and mighty effective too which perfectly compliments the story. The photography is beautiful and the variation in camera angles throughout the movie are just perfect in how it shows the constant duel in action. Just maverick film direction and editing.

It reminds me a little of 2001: A Space Odyssey which is another purely visual spectacle although a totally different story.

Highly efficient movie making like in the silent era especially with the films of Chaplin.

The skill and talent to pull off the tricks that make the speed of the vehicles quicker than they are actually doing in reality with such convincing results is mighty impressive.

To think that this movie was made in 12 days or so is remarkable. I couldn't believe it when Mr Spielberg said it only took that long to shoot the movie.

CEOTK seems to really divide opinion. My view is it is an original and effective movie about aliens that was not really done prior to that getting made. Having the aliens as benevolent beings is something that makes it refreshing as opposed to War Of the Worlds, The Thing from Another World & Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and many others where the aliens are always malevolent forces trying to destroy or takeover mankind etc. A lot of the modern movies are the same such as the trashy Independence Day etc.

It still stands out as one of the better movies on aliens or ETs. It is effective at building up an atmosphere and sense of wonder and mystery that many other alien movies fail to achieve. It deals with the subject with intelligence and my guess is Mr Spielberg is probably quite knowledgeable about the topic he was covering based on my own personal interest on the subject.

The pyrotechnics and sound also are brilliant touches that contribute to the movie and the Roy Neary character and his obsession is interesting. Are the aliens communicating with him? If so, why him? Is he seeking a father figure? Is he trying to escape being a father and husband? Does he dislike humanity? Is it an autobiographical story of Spielberg seeking to reconnect with his parents or wishing back to an earlier innocent time in his life before his separation from his parents after divorce?

It's a highly regarded film by both critics and audiences alike but my guess is the movie will be even more respected and appreciated as time moves on. The movie was way ahead of its time in my opinion like 2001 although both did make a lot of money at the box office.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Agreed, the idea that a relatively inexpensive film at 40m (and I know that figure doesn’t include A&P, but this movie seems light on that as well) has to make 100m just to break even does seem pretty absurd and makes me wonder how film is even a viable business, but I suppose Star Wars, MCU, Mission Impossible and the occasional sleeper hit (The Sixth Sense, A Quiet Place etc.) keep it afloat

On the other hand, $100m worldwide doesn't seem like a high bar these days.

I mean, it's not insubstantial, but it's not an actual achievement like it used to be.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Steven Spielberg’s 21st Century Movies Ranked

From 'A.I.' to 'The Fabelmans,' here’s a look back at the movies Steven Spielberg has made since 2000.

variety.com

"Steven Spielberg’s 21st Century Movies Ranked, By Michael Nordine"​

Here's Variety's new list....

1. AI
2. Catch Me If you Can
3. Minority Report
4. The Fabelmans
5. Munich
6. The Post
7. The Terminal
8. West Side Story
9. Lincoln
10. War Horse
11. Bridge of Spies
12. War of the Worlds
13. Ready Player One
14. The Adventures of Tintin
15. The BFG
16. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull


This is a fairly good list from my pov, and more or less on the right track. But I would have a somewhat different ranking. I'll need to think about it a bit.

Anyone else feel like sharing their ranked list of Spielberg's movies of the 21st century?

This list reminds me how semi-mediocre Spielberg has been the last 20+ years.

Most of those movies are pretty good, with only "BFG" as an actual dog - totally lifeless movie.

"WSS" was unnecessary and also pretty dull.

The rest? Varying levels of "not bad" to "pretty good", but nothing GREAT.

"WotW" is my fave, and I'd probably go "Skull" second just because I like the franchise so much.

Otherwise, nothing there that makes me eager to rewatch.

Spielberg's not made a really good movie since 1998.

 

[TravisR]

This list reminds me how semi-mediocre Spielberg has been the last 20+ years.

Most of those movies are pretty good, with only "BFG" as an actual dog - totally lifeless movie.

"WSS" was unnecessary and also pretty dull.

The rest? Varying levels of "not bad" to "pretty good", but nothing GREAT.

A.I., Catch Me If You Can, Munich, The Adventures Of Tintin and Lincoln are all great to me. West Side Story and The Fabelmans are way up there too but I think it would be a tad premature to call a movie that's basically a year old "great".

Spielberg's not made a really good movie since 1998.

Spielberg's a victim of his own success because if anyone else had made the movies that he made since 1998, they'd be lauded as a genius. However, since Spielberg's first 25 or so years were so damn good, many people are like "Eh" when he doesn't turn out Jaws or Raiders Of The Lost Ark.