Spielberg: Best Years Behind Him?

[bruce_pullen]

Steven Spielberg, best years behind him? It's been years... since his last classic. Is Steven over the hill? Yes or No?

[browinie]

No. I'm surprised someone would even ask.

[kpkelley]

Indiana Jones was certainly a dissapointment, but not from a Directorial point of view. Furthermore, I really enjoyed Munich which more than made up for his misstep with War of the Worlds.

I vote NO.

[Gremal]

I thought Munich was the wrong movie with the wrong message...at a very wrong time. He is a brilliant director but he has lost his way. I hope he finds it soon.

[mikejet]

He'll be making an awesome movie soon to make back all that money Madoff took.

[ckent22]

Not at all. Spielberg is arguably the greatest director who has ever lived and he definitely is the most successful director alive. You can't blame certain films he did on a bad script. A great director can take a bad script and make it translate well to the screen which is what he did with Indiana Jones 4.

[mustang-gt-2002]

sorry but yes I think he is. dont think he will ever have movies like before. last one for me was jurassic park.
after that it was down hill

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Not at all. Spielberg is arguably the greatest director who has ever lived and he definitely is the most successful director alive. You can't blame certain films he did on a bad script. A great director can take a bad script and make it translate well to the screen which is what he did with Indiana Jones 4.

The question is… Is there a trend of negative growth? The days of Raiders, Jaws, or Private Ryan... are getting farther all the time. Is Spielberg now... worthy of his reputation? Does the Director of War of the Worlds, Munich, and Crystal Skull feel like the man who did Temple of Doom, Close Encounters, or Schindler's List?

That's the question?

His past should be a measures, not an excuse. Those classics should keep him aggressive. Not coast on prior hits.

Remove the legend folks… Ask if what he’s doing measure up… to what was.

The past shouldn’t be a life preserver. Present merit not past glory..

That’s the question.

Is Spielberg still Spielberg?

[JamesKurtovich]

Eh, not really. But I do think his movies were more well received in the 90's (E.T., Jurassic Park, etc.). His latest movies aren't too great. Especially War of the Worlds. And I hate how he ended Kubrick's A.I..

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by mustang-gt-2002

sorry but yes I think he is. dont think he will ever have movies like before. last one for me was jurassic park.
after that it was down hill

Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? Both of these were done after Jurassic Park and are probably 2 of his best movies ever.

Do not make box office success equal good movies everyone. It's possible that he is not at the top of the box office numbers like he was in the 70's, 80's and early 90's but he is far from over the hill.

[mdm1699]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

Steven Spielberg, best years behind him? It's been years... since his last classic. Is Steven over the hill? Yes or No?

No. The audience taste is different. I do think that time is slowly leaving him and his generation behind . We are a diverse nation in a diverse world.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

The question is… Is there a trend of negative growth? The days of Raiders, Jaws, or Private Ryan... are getting farther all the time. Is Spielberg now... worthy of his reputation? Does the Director of War of the Worlds, Munich, and Crystal Skull feel like the man who did Temple of Doom, Close Encounters, or Schindler's List?

That's the question?

His past should be a measures, not an excuse. Those classics should keep him aggressive. Not coast on prior hits.

Remove the legend folks… Ask if what he’s doing measure up… to what was.

The past shouldn’t be a life preserver. Present merit not past glory..

That’s the question.

Is Spielberg still Spielberg?

Simple answer yes.

[bferr1]

With the exception of "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan," I generally prefer Spielberg the Wunderkind to Spielberg the Sophisticated Artiste.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by bferr1

With the exception of "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan," I generally prefer Spielberg the Wunderkind to Spielberg the Artiste.

The best thing I've read all day.

Agreed.. (with the exception of those two, I would also add Minority Report) I vastly prefer the Wunderkind to the Artiste.

Tarantino once said... he hopes to retire: before he made the leap from sensation to Auteur.

In the end, it is the Wunderkind. We remember fondly. Not painful posturing... Or half-baked replicas of what was..

[kpkelley]

To those who argue against Munich:

At crucial times in a nation’s history, its best friends may be its critics. Spielberg did not have to make “Munich,” but he needed to. With this film he has dramatically opened a wider dialogue, helping to make the inarguable into the debatable. As a thriller, “Munich” is efficient, absorbing, effective. As an ethical argument, it is haunting. And its questions are not only for Israel but for any nation that believes it must compromise its values to defend them.

Link

[reallyagi]

If you had a great script or idea, would you doubt that Spielberg could translate into a great film? I wouldn't. He's still THE MAN!!!

[richieb1971]

Spielberg had a choice to do War of the worlds and Crystall Skull. If he didn't like the script he shouldn't have made the movies.

If Spielberg resorts to aliens in his movies, I think he is running out of ideas. If you look at his resume, almost 50% of his movies have an alien theme in them.

If you look at raiders, then you look at skull, if I didn't know I would say they were from different directors. One has creativity, breaks new ground, has tons of stunts, awesome cast that provides intrigue and wonder into his creation. The other just mimics some run of the mill action with an alien twist at the end that never seems to gain pace or excitement.

So I vote yes, he is over the hill. But I think he is more than capable of a surprise. Thats why I will still watch his movies.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

If Spielberg resorts to aliens in his movies, I think he is running out of ideas. If you look at his resume, almost 50% of his movies have an alien theme in them.

He's a child of the fifties and a certified Alien/Sci-Fi nut, what do you expect?

Would Peter Jackson have made LOTR if he didn't love fantasy films?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by bferr1

With the exception of "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan," I generally prefer Spielberg the Wunderkind to Spielberg the Sophisticated Artiste.

Yes I am with you on this but maybe he wanted something different, try something different? Maybe he wanted to make different type of movies to change him from the popcorn fun summer movies of his youth? He is now in his 60's, you see the world differently then when you are 30 something.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

He's a child of the fifties and a certified Alien/Sci-Fi nut, what do you expect?

Would Peter Jackson have made LOTR if he didn't love fantasy films?

That's a thought for another thread... Spielberg: Child of the 50's.