Poltergeist (1982) (25th Anniversary Deluxe Edition)

[oilers73]

Everybody knows it was Kurt Russell who actually directed this...

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by oilers73

Everybody knows it was Kurt Russell who actually directed this...

I think it was the one-armed man.

[Flexicon9]

... just an opinion quoted from a previous article related to Poltergeist:

"Ultimately, it’s best to view Poltergeist as a collaboration, because you can see the fingerprints of both directors in the finished product. As much as the children in peril, suburban family life, and sense of wonder are classic Spielberg, the terror scenes feel grimy and dangerous in a way that he still hasn’t ever replicated. That stuff had to have come from Hooper. And we know he works well in teams, as evidenced by his collaboration with George Romero (RIP) on Creepshow."

... I didn't know he worked on Creepshow and if he didn't then we have a whole new can of worms to open.

[bubbamoo]

thanks for taking the time to explain all that. very interesting stuff.

like pretty much everyone else, this movie scared me and thrilled me in a very unique way and at a young age.

Certainly seems like a collaboration when you consider each of their bodies of work and the finished product.

[drush9999]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

I think it was the one-armed man.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

It was Hooper's idea. Spielberg didn't have ghosts anywhere near his mind until Hooper pitched him an idea that he'd been researching for several years concerning a family living next to a cemetery.

This is typical in filmmaking generally for every movie (not just Poltergeist) when the director, screenwriters, and producers share their thoughts and ideas with one another to create a movie. It's impossible for one person to do it all. The crew members give each other's input for them to work together. Other than the main cast and crew, you'll need a hairstylist, makeup artist, costume designer, composer, sets, stuntmen, and stuntwomen, etc. It takes hundreds or even thousands of people to make a movie. After a movie is over, remain seated and watch the end credits, and you'll realize what it takes to make a film.

[OneWayFilms]

While both Hooper and Speilberg can share the directing credit, they BOTH can also share the blame for that shoddy editing hack job that takes place when trying to edit out the line about Pizza Hut in the Kitchen and clumsily jumps to the parents at the neighbors door. That is one of the WORST editing jumps I have ever seen in ANY motion picture, and it STILL kills that entire scene for me.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

While both Hooper and Speilberg can share the directing credit, they BOTH can also share the blame for that shoddy editing hack job that takes place when trying to edit out the line about Pizza Hut in the Kitchen and clumsily jumps to the parents at the neighbors door. That is one of the WORST editing jumps I have ever seen in ANY motion picture, and it STILL kills that entire scene for me.

It's Hollywood, and this is all a part of filmmaking. I've never seen a film that didn't have some kind of a flaw. I just look over it because it's only a movie.

[drush9999]

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

While both Hooper and Speilberg can share the directing credit, they BOTH can also share the blame for that shoddy editing hack job that takes place when trying to edit out the line about Pizza Hut in the Kitchen and clumsily jumps to the parents at the neighbors door. That is one of the WORST editing jumps I have ever seen in ANY motion picture, and it STILL kills that entire scene for me.

I dunno why they don't reinstate that line, as it's not slanderous or whatever. And Pizza Hut does indeed suck

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by Flexicon9

... just an opinion quoted from a previous article related to Poltergeist:

"Ultimately, it’s best to view Poltergeist as a collaboration, because you can see the fingerprints of both directors in the finished product. As much as the children in peril, suburban family life, and sense of wonder are classic Spielberg, the terror scenes feel grimy and dangerous in a way that he still hasn’t ever replicated. That stuff had to have come from Hooper. And we know he works well in teams, as evidenced by his collaboration with George Romero (RIP) on Creepshow."

... I didn't know he worked on Creepshow and if he didn't then we have a whole new can of worms to open.

Hooper had nothing to do with Creepshow. Can of worms closed. Back to Poltergeist.

If one thinks Spielberg was some sort of overseeing "wizard," one should take a look at what Hooper did to his script. Snip snip, cut cut. That's dumb, let's not do that. And I get it, I'm surrounded by people who believe it was some sort of "team effort," which it was - in a producer/director capacity - but if I had to bet my head, I would, that Hooper pissed Spielberg off with the number of liberties he took with whatever "design" Spielberg thought he was giving the film through his script, not to mention the sheer number of times they had to re-storyboard the climax because likely Hooper was not happy with what they had planned. And I know, Spielberg re-storyboards until they meet his standards. Just read the script.

Originally Posted by bubbamoo

thanks for taking the time to explain all that. very interesting stuff.

It is interesting. It's too bad it's this baggage and a history of bias that keeps this from getting the proper full making-of treatment.

Originally Posted by slimdude

This is typical in filmmaking in general for every movie (not just Poltergeist) when the director, screenwriters, and producers share their thoughts and ideas with one another to create a movie. It's impossible for one person to do it all. The crew members give each other's input for them to work together. Other than the main cast and crew, you'll need a hairstylist, makeup artist, costume designer, composer, sets, stuntmen, and stuntwomen, etc. It takes hundreds or even thousands of people to make a movie. After a movie is over, remain seated and watch the end credits, and you'll realize what it takes to make a film.

Great, maybe Spielberg should've taken a message about that when he gave interviews barely giving Hooper a nod when asked what the genesis of the film was. Hooper of all people understood film is a collaborative medium. Hooper calls filmmaking a war dance, and that he "had numerous very talented people working around him, and he was at the center of it." It's the reason he let Spielberg inject all the Spielberg in it. What he did then was make it his own, by collaborating with his actors, the mechanical FX people, the wardrobe department, etc.

But it was his idea, and your comment doesn't really negate that fact.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by drush9999

I dunno why they don't reinstate that line, as it's not slanderous or whatever. And Pizza Hut does indeed suck

They could've just snipped that line out with some strategic editing. There's also a gag where Carol Anne sits back down and is rocketed into the wall, cracking it. Their reasoning cutting that was that it was too much, too soon. I wonder the legitimacy of their being afraid of offending Pizza Hut (I'd believe it, though).

[Donl1282]

I see a lot of new posts on this film. Is there a new release coming out?

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

But it was his idea, and your comment doesn't really negate that fact.

It appears that you personally just want Poltergeist to be only a Tobe Hooper's movie without anybody else's involvement. You're favoring Tobe Hooper and refusing to give Steven any credibility for his work on the film, but unfortunately, that is not the case. Poltergeist was a collaboration of both filmmakers, and I don't know why that is so difficult for you to accept. Steven Spielberg has a lot of power and clout in the movie industry, and he doesn't need anybody's permission for anything whenever he's working on a film because he already knows what to do, and how to do it.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

It is interesting. It's too bad it's this baggage and a history of bias that keeps this from getting the proper full making-of treatment.

Isn't it more the "curse" history than the "who directed it?" history that keeps this from getting a special edition release?

[atamo]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Isn't it more the "curse" history than the "who directed it?" history that keeps this from getting a special edition release?

I've never really understood that logic. Firstly, I think they should just own the controversies, because it would make a fascinating documentary.

But, secondly, even if they're worried about the controversies, then they should just tell whoever is making the documentaries not to mention it, or cut out anything "controversial". It would be a cop-out, but there is still plenty to talk about, and now that Tobe Hooper is gone, no controversy about not interviewing him.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by slimdude

It appears that you personally just want Poltergeist to be only a Tobe Hooper's movie without anybody else's involvement. You're favoring Tobe Hooper and refusing to give Steven any credibility for his work on the film, but unfortunately, that is not the case. Poltergeist was a collaboration of both filmmakers, and I don't know why that is so difficult for you to accept. Steven Spielberg got a lot of power and clout in the movie industry, and he doesn't need anybody's permission for anything whenever he's working on a film because he already knows what to do, and how to do it.

It's a matter of equal distribution of wrongs. Hooper was slandered for four decades. I've no problem saying Spielberg wrote the film and was a collaborator throughout the shoot. But, for me, separation of roles is important, and, in fact, according to much testimony, he fully deserved the credit on the film.

Yes, it was a collaboration with Spielberg... as writer and producer. This isn't me being bullish, this is me simply trying to get to the bottom of the fact I think the film feels much more like undiluted Hooper than it does Spielberg. Naturally, ask me who directed the film, and I'm going with what every single actor with a solid story says: "Tobe Hooper was directing [me]." It's called evidence. You've got some, I just don't put much credence in your evidence.

That is a scary portrait of Spielberg you paint, by the way. "He doesn't need permission" to be a scary dictator and overstep his bounds? Thankfully, that didn't seem to be the case.

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Isn't it more the "curse" history than the "who directed it?" history that keeps this from getting a special edition release?

Doubt it.

Originally Posted by atamo

I've never really understood that logic. Firstly, I think they should just own the controversies, because it would make a fascinating documentary.

But, secondly, even if they're worried about the controversies, then they should just tell whoever is making the documentaries not to mention it, or cut out anything "controversial". It would be a cop-out, but there is still plenty to talk about, and now that Tobe Hooper is gone, no controversy about not interviewing him.

It's true, my guess is a boutique outfit like Scream Factory will finally get it and gather some interviews, and they'll lightly broach the topic, and it will result in a series of conflicting perspectives. As it's always been. It'll be up to us to gather our rocks.

A close friend of Hooper claimed that Hooper said he was approached to record a commentary for the Special Edition. He tried to convince Hooper to do it, because Hooper wanted to do it, but he didn't want to burn bridges.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

A close friend of Hooper claimed that Hooper said he was approached to record a commentary for the Special Edition. He tried to convince Hooper to do it, because Hooper wanted to do it, but he didn't want to burn bridges.

So Hooper refused to participate in a special edition, and of course that's totally Spielberg's fault.

Your bias is on naked display here.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by slimdude

It appears that you personally just want Poltergeist to be only a Tobe Hooper's movie without anybody else's involvement. You're favoring Tobe Hooper and refusing to give Steven any credibility for his work on the film, but unfortunately, that is not the case. Poltergeist was a collaboration of both filmmakers, and I don't know why that is so difficult for you to accept. Steven Spielberg got a lot of power and clout in the movie industry, and he doesn't need anybody's permission for anything whenever he's working on a film because he already knows what to do, and how to do it.

Oh my God calm down Gloria we know ur panties are in a wad, please unwad them so we can keep the thread going lmao

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

"He doesn't need permission" to be a scary dictator and overstep his bounds? Thankfully, that didn't seem to be the case.

That's right! When he's directing a movie, he can practically do whatever he wants. It's his project! He's got the authority to hire and fire anyone if he's dissatisfied with the production of his film for whatever reason.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

So Hooper refused to participate in a special edition, and of course that's totally Spielberg's fault.

Your bias is on naked display here.

I am biased, but I also didn't say that. Just reporting what I personally heard from that interview. The individual said Hooper had the opportunity to record a commentary. He was uncertain. The individual said, "If you want to do it, just do it!" So yes, I probably am jumping 2 the conclusion that Hooper was eager to record it, but it's the idea I got. Hooper ultimately decided not to.

But when did I say it was Spielberg's fault? Yes, indirectly, but I find completely understandable Hooper's reasons for not recording it, and I don't presume to know what he would have said on that track. I for one do not think he would've said, "Spielberg sucked!" I think he simply chose to not stir the pot. Which was in his nature. I wish he recorded it, but I don't think either that Evil Spielberg was the reason behind his choice not to. Nor that he'd have to lie in order to talk about having directed the picture to his satisfaction.