Poltergeist (1982) (25th Anniversary Deluxe Edition)

[Matt89]

There's also strong connections between Close Encounters and Poltergeist. Both feature children who are essentially whisked away to another realm while their parents are left desperately searching for them. The abduction scene is like a scene straight out of Poltergeist. And again, the child in Close Encounters came from a broken home, Like Elliot in E.T.

Additionally, the face ripping scene in Poltergeist is similar to the face melting scene in Raiders, etc.

Poltergeist fits so comfortably into Spielberg's oeuvre that it's impossible to overlook.

~Matt

[klauswhereareyou]

I've posted this before but watch 15:39-16:36

DP/30 Industry Legends: editor Michael Kahn - YouTube

[Martoto]

Spielberg doesn't do unbroken families fighting to protect themselves and preserve their unity. That's why he didn't direct it and Tobe did. That's why Steven did E.T., with the young boy discovering something that helps fill the hole in his broken family.

It's a Spielberg film directed by Tobe Hooper the same way that Raiders et al are Lucas films directed by Spielberg. I'm not saying they are exactly the same but they should be treated the same way out of respect for both filmmakers.

[postmodel]

That BTS featurette on Amblin’s YouTube page is Spielberg focused, but whenever Tobe is shown, he’s the one talking to the actors.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by James Luckard

I knew (slightly) someone who worked on recording the score, who said Spielberg solely and completely oversaw the scoring of the film. Whether that was as part of his function as producer can be argued elsewhere, but that's what I was told. Spielberg worked with Goldsmith again the following year, when he scored The Twilight Zone, including the segment directed by Spielberg.

A movie director always oversees and listen to the score for their film to give their approval or disapprove the score and require the composer to make changes until the music is the way they want it to sound. That's what a film composer is hired and being paid to do by the filmmaker. The same as if a person hire a contractor to do work in their home, and if the job is not done to the homeowner's satisfaction, the contractor is obligated to make changes until its right.

[Socko]

So Tobe Hooper is dead and MGM belongs to Amazon.
I hope for a 2022 40th anniversary 4k release.

Mad Max was from MGM and done by Kino
Spaceballs was from MGM and done by Kino

so who knows!

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Socko

So Tobe Hooper is dead and MGM belongs to Amazon.
I hope for a 2022 40th anniversary 4k release.

Mad Max was from MGM and done by Kino
Spaceballs was from MGM and done by Kino

so who knows!

Poltergeist is with Warner.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I think the reason why people find it so easy to believe Spielberg co-directed (or ghost directed whichever you prefer) POLTERGEIST is because Hooper never did anything before or after that came close to its professionalism and quality. For whatever reasons the finished film reeks of Spielberg. That may be unfair but it's how many see it.

Yes, Hooper was never able to reclaim that mainstream quality, but that is because he is a complex filmmaker. But this position still remains untenable, particularly in face of facts (and fairness). Some would call Poltergeist fairly oddball for a mainstream film, full of sloppy editing, strangely distant characters, and a nonsensical plot. This is because Hooper contributed integrally to the writing and development process. This was a collaboration from day 1 between two filmmakers, and to try to remove one of them is definitely unfair.

As for reeking of Spielberg, I (and many) see the film as too deliberately paced to be a Spielberg film. I posted an excerpt of the script in a previous post that has the characters be more overtly comical. The little boy character has quips and is rambunctious, i.e. “I’m seven, give me a break!” when being loaded onto the taxi. Then there is the matter of the visuals, which treat a house with the claustrophobia of any other Hooper film about oppressive, symbolic spaces.

So yes, it is unfair and it’s full of holes, to believe Spielberg directed this. What he did was write and produce, with a director and collaborator there to tell him how to make a film that is a little scarier and more a distinct concoction than a straight-up Amblin film.

Originally Posted by Matt89

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. There's a polished nature to Poltergeist that Hooper's other films don't really have (although at the same time that ruggedness is half the charm of Hooper's films and it really works most of the time). Hooper was definitely a competent filmmaker, but Poltergeist mostly feels like a Spielberg production because, well, it simply was. Industrial Light and Magic even did the effects and I realize that's a George Lucas-founded FX company, but that all the more makes it a Spielberg production IMO.

~Matt

And indeed it is a Spielberg production. But Hooper also made a Canon production and that film feels like a Canon production. He managed to get an Amblin film a bit down in the dirt and managed to elevate a Canon film.

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

The essence of the whole argument distilled down to this perfect paragraph, yes. And yet somehow ptsherm will argue that LIFEFORCE, ‘SALEM’S LOT, INVADERS FROM MARS and the downright atavistic THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE are every bit as professionally and artfully wrought as POLTERGEIST. Frankly, I’m over it. The more I argue with someone so completely untethered from reality, the more I have to question my own sanity.

You have a very narrow sense of what film “quality” is, resorting to mainstream markers of accessibility and convention and seeing that the epitome of “artfully wrought.” You know, some peoples consider Texas Chain Saw the perfect example of something “artfully wrought,” considering it is steeped in art tradition of European art films and avant-garde editing. It also studies a house with the same rigor and fascination as Poltergeist. Just because it doesn’t have the same money and its story wasn’t massaged by a committee trying to make a tentpole summer blockbuster doesn’t mean it’s somehow lesser (though that’s an opinion you may hold). I’m sorry so many of us are untethered from the same reality you are, but it’s a matter of untangling something complicated with some level of objectivity, even if that objectivity seems insane to you.

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

The fact that this film has had pretty much zero extras seems a little suspect. The only other Spielberg produced genre film that falls into that category is Twilight Zone: the Movie. Even Gremlins a film that seems way lighter on extras than it should has a few deleted scenes and an audio commentary on it.

Spielberg has always been reluctant with all his produced films to remove their mystique. But it is the controversy and scandal that makes Poltergeist difficult, not only conflicting views on directing (to put it clearly, actors support Hooper, but if they interviewed any ILM-affiliated people, the Blu-Ray producers would be scrambling to make them talk with more politesse), but also the DGA lawsuit and another lawsuit about the writing of Poltergeist. There was supposed to be a 25th Anniversary special edition, and supposedly they’d interviewed Richard Edlund (the staunchest anti-Hooper voice, but whose position seems more bitter than viable), brought in Hooper to oversee, and even asked Hooper to provide a commentary. Hooper declines, though, worries that he’d be speaking out of turn because Spielberg was in no way involved with the release.

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I also find it interesting how closely related the themes of Poltergeist and ET are (the latter, of course, being a film Spielberg directed that same year). The former is about a family being torn apart due to losing a child. The latter is about a family being torn apart by divorce. This seemed to be something Spielberg was exploring around that time. I think that also fuels some of the controversy around who really did the film.

Spielberg wrote the film. The real fuel was MGM freezing Hooper out of the press and not allowing him to promote his own film, but Spielberg’s interest in family is perhaps part of it, too.

Originally Posted by JGradus

I attended a 25th anniversary screening of "Poltergeist" at the Aero Theater in Santa Monica. After the screening, there was a 30-minute panel discussion with co-writer Mark Victor, actor James Karen, and actress Zelda Rubinstein. The panelists did discuss the issue of authorship of the film.

A video of the panel discussion is on YouTube (I did not shoot and do not own this video). The discussion of who directed "Poltergeist" begins at 22:55. I find Zelda's take to be of particular interest.

"Poltergeist" 25th Anniversary Panel Discussion - YouTube

“I found Hooper set up every shot, and then Steven came in and made final adjustment. So I think it was a split decision.” That’s the part that really matters. It is both a repetition of her chosen line of argument (she always says Hooper “set up the shots” and Spielberg “made the adjustments” in some variation) and a far cry from what she’s said before (“Spielberg directed all seven days I was there”). It sounds to me she cannot confirm or deny one way or another. Considering how in tumult her scenes seem to have been in a directorial standpoint (the upstairs hallway scene was supposed to take place downstairs, her long “Beast” monologue was an impromptu addition not in any draft of the shooting script), or how FX heavy all her scenes are, it’s clear her perspective (she hated Hooper, for unknown reasons, yet still gives him his credit) is more conflicted than it seems.

Originally Posted by Matt89

There's also strong connections between Close Encounters and Poltergeist. Both feature children who are essentially whisked away to another realm while their parents are left desperately searching for them. The abduction scene is like a scene straight out of Poltergeist. And again, the child in Close Encounters came from a broken home, Like Elliot in E.T.

Additionally, the face ripping scene in Poltergeist is similar to the face melting scene in Raiders, etc.

Poltergeist fits so comfortably into Spielberg's oeuvre that it's impossible to overlook.

~Matt

The abduction element was one of the last things added to the story, to circumvent the first draft decision to kill off Carol Anne. It wasn’t the impetus to write the film, but a Spielberg flavoring added in to make it more mainstream. Like Spielberg deciding to keep Gizmo good and have him save the day.

The face-ripping scene was the idea of a make-up man. In the script, the character was only supposed to look up and see himself as a corpse. This points to the innovation-encouraging and anything’s-possible environment of Spielberg productions, yes. As for comfortably sitting, though, I don’t think there’s a Spielberg film that is this content to let its characters suffer without rhyme or reason, but that’s just my opinion.

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I've posted this before but watch 15:39-16:36

DP/30 Industry Legends: editor Michael Kahn - YouTube

Michael Kahn - not on set. He even says, “I don’t pay attention to the mishigas on set.” That said, when Kahn came on to start editing the film is a question, as Hooper and Frank Marshall insist Hooper was in the editing room from August to October 1981 (immediately after completion of principle photography) editing his cut of the film. It’s baffling to me that Kahn wouldn’t mention working with Hooper if Kahn was involved during Hooper’s time editing.

Originally Posted by slimdude

A movie director always oversees and listen to the score for their film to give their approval or disapprove the score and require the composer to make changes until the music is the way they want it to sound. That's what a film composer is hired and being paid to do by the filmmaker.

Or producers. Producers are also usually the ones paying people.

[Vandal Savage]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

The credits say Produced by Steven Spielberg and Directed by Tobe Hooper. Now, go watch ANY 1970s-1980s-era Steven Spielberg film and ANY film from Tobe Hooper of any era and the controversy over who directed POLTERGEIST will become abundantly clear.

Yeah, watch Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Funhouse, Lifeforce, and then watch Poltergeist, and see which movies it has more in common with.

Which isn't a shot against Hooper or anything, but Spielberg films from the mid-70s to the mid-80s had a very distinct "feel" to them that other movies didn't have.

If Spielberg didn't direct it, then he was a very hands-on producer because his fingerprints are all over the film.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by Vandal Savage

Yeah, watch Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Funhouse, Lifeforce, and then watch Poltergeist, and see which movies it has more in common with.

Which isn't a shot against Hooper or anything, but Spielberg films from the mid-70s to the mid-80s had a very distinct "feel" to them that other movies didn't have.

If Spielberg didn't direct it, then he was a very hands-on producer because his fingerprints are all over the film.

Spielberg really didn’t think in these terms:






Spielberg thought in terms of the action image and kinetics, not triangulation of space and shapes and fear. Sure Poltergeist looks more expensive, but that’s because it is more expensive and a Spielberg production.

Spielberg didn’t direct it. The rumors are partial and driven by love of one filmmaker and disinterest in the other (and PR shenanigans). So I guess he was a hands-on producer, that’s all, who got the typical amount of push back from a director.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

[TenYearLurker]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

A bunch of longwinded stuff across multiple novel-length posts

You speak with authority, but not with facts. You make tons of broad generalizations about filmmaking (some of which aren't at all accurate, or were only accurate in the 40's and 50's). You're clearly incredibly invested in it being Hooper's movie, to the point of discounting the accounts of cast and crew who were actually there.

I don't have a horse in this race. I like Spielberg and Hooper. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of each sides' arguments. What's clear though, is you're so biased that you're even pushing back against the folks who are simply saying that it may be Hooper's movie, but it has Spielberg's fingerprints all over it--something that even a casual viewer/fan would have to agree with.

Why do you need this film to have been directed by Tobe Hooper? I'm starting to think you actually are a relative of his, or just a superfan who cares waaaayyyyyy too much about something that we'll likely never have a definitive answer about.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

Spielberg really didn’t think in these terms:






Spielberg thought in terms of the action image and kinetics, not triangulation of space and shapes and fear. Sure Poltergeist looks more expensive, but that’s because it is more expensive and a Spielberg production.

Spielberg didn’t direct it. The rumors are partial and driven by love of one filmmaker and disinterest in the other (and PR shenanigans). So I guess he was a hands-on producer, that’s all, who got the typical amount of push back from a director.

None of us are discrediting Hooper, we’re just saying the movie that he made with Spielberg is very much a Spielberg production and has most of the trademarks of a typical Spielberg film. Yet, you continue to discredit him. Sorry, but this is all utter nonsense. There is a reason Spielberg became as famous as he did and why his films were massive box-office successes. The guy is a master filmmaker.

He doesn’t know triangulation of space? You realize Spielberg wasn’t the DP right? And neither was Hooper. And those films you posted pics from all had different cinematographers working on them. So your point is moot.

He doesn’t know fear? Lmao. Okay. Go watch the beginning of Jaws and get back to me. Go watch the scene where Hooper finds the tooth in Ben Gardner’s boat. That shit is the stuff of nightmares. He also WROTE Poltergeist. But he doesn’t know “fear”? ABSOLUTE bullshit.

And those images don’t….prove anything. Especially those last four.

You make such broad generalizations, it wouldn’t hurt for you to take a film class.

~Matt

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by TenYearLurker

You speak with authority, but not with facts. You make tons of broad generalizations about filmmaking (some of which aren't at all accurate, or were only accurate in the 40's and 50's). You're clearly incredibly invested in it being Hooper's movie, to the point of discounting the accounts of cast and crew who were actually there.

I do not speak from authority, I speak with what I have gleaned from research and a credible evaluation of the material. What may have been accurate in the 40s and 50s May still be accurate for this production. You don’t know, I don’t know, but I am not the one discounting multiple cast members saying Hooper directed it. Why does that fact not allow us to come to rational conclusions that actors believe Hooper was their director, and that the rumors may not be all that they’re cracked up to be?

I don't have a horse in this race. I like Spielberg and Hooper. I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of each sides' arguments. What's clear though, is you're so biased that you're even pushing back against the folks who are simply saying that it may be Hooper's movie, but it has Spielberg's fingerprints all over it--something that even a casual viewer/fan would have to agree with.

Not how I’m reading it. Those who seem to be arguing with me want to give credence to the rumors that Spielberg directed the majority of the movie. I don’t take issue with someone saying Spielberg influences the movie - he wrote it, he collaborated and gave ideas to Hooper, but Hooper seems to have executed, taken full advantage of Spielberg’s sensibility, and even diverged from them when it seemed important to him (as mentioned rewrites and reinterpretations are all over a film, one written in a week by Spielberg with Hooper’s assistance, so especially open to reworking while shooting).

Why do you need this film to have been directed by Tobe Hooper? I'm starting to think you actually are a relative of his, or just a superfan who cares waaaayyyyyy too much about something that we'll likely never have a definitive answer about.

Why do we need to learn a history of a film that interests us with some transparency? I see Hooper in the film. I look into the real story behind the rumors. I find things that support my position that Hooper was an integral creative voice behind it and I share it. That’s all. I wish I could prevent people from ignoring these things that are not just generalizations, they are deliberately gathered accounts that point in one direction and go against rumors and gossip that has already been fought against, not by me but by Hooper himself and the Director’s Guild. We know some bad actors were at play at the studio, because they paid Hooper out. Let’s go from there rather than reverting back to letting journalists in 1982 tell us what to think despite not having any of the information we have now.

Originally Posted by Matt89

None of us are discrediting Hooper, we’re just saying the movie that he made with Spielberg is very much a Spielberg production and has most of the trademarks of a typical Spielberg film. Yet, you continue to discredit him. Sorry, but this is all utter nonsense. There is a reason Spielberg became as famous as he did and why his films were massive box-office successes. The guy is a master filmmaker.

I am not discrediting Spielberg, I am giving him exactly the credit attributed to him by the actors, which is he was their producer, but did not direct them and was not present enough to be a proper director.

I agree he is a master filmmaker. Perhaps one should step back and see that Poltergeist has half the virtuoso techniques he usually employs and is much more back to basics.

He doesn’t know triangulation of space? You realize Spielberg wasn’t the DP right? And neither was Hooper. And those films you posted pics from all had different cinematographers working on them. So your point is moot.

He doesn’t know fear? Lmao. Okay. Go watch the beginning of Jaws and get back to me. Go watch the scene where Hooper finds the tooth in Ben Gardner’s boat. That shit is the stuff of nightmares. He also WROTE Poltergeist. But he doesn’t know “fear”? ABSOLUTE bullshit.

And those images don’t….prove anything. Especially those last four.

You make such broad generalizations, it wouldn’t hurt for you to take a film class.

~Matt

I’m sorry you think so little of my aesthetic evaluations. The auteur theory is a complex thing but I happen to be a real adherent, as no matter a difference of cinematographer between films, a filmmaker often influences the rhythm of a set and the nature of where a camera is placed. Hooper is less interested in close-ups. He’ll study rooms at distances. Poltergeist shows that interest in distances.

I think you are too invested in Spielberg’s influence. I didn’t say Spielberg doesn’t know those things, but he doesn’t know them in the same particular way Hooper does. People often give Hooper the pool scene as a consolation prize, and certainly the fear presented there is different from the fear of the opening in Jaws, which is brutal and rapid. Hooper draws out his fear to become a state of mind. That’s kind of how to make a horror movie, and we’ve established Poltergeist is one of the better ones.

I think we’re all generalizing. But this is just an ancillary approach to showing that the preponderance of evidence points to the rumors being just that. A little bit of a tide-turning isn’t going to hurt Spielberg’s contributions to this film... what has been treated as evidence for three decades (despite every anonymous insider story going “Oh, Hooper was there,” “Hooper was on set,” “Spielberg directed but Hooper contributed creatively”) has been hurting Hooper’s contribution, and it seems that’s all this push back is trying to do - continue this idea. I admit fully - Spielberg wrote this. Not without Hooper. I admit - Spielberg produced this and had a lot of say. Hooper often went off book and did his own thing. Thus, collaboration between producer and director. Hitchcock worked with Selznick. That relationship consisted of lots of fighting and Selznick even reshooting scenes. No one says Rebecca isn’t as good as it is because Hitchcock wasn’t involved and overtaken by his producer, when he literally was. We don’t even have that much evidence of conflict for Poltergeist, instead actors say Hooper was directing beginning to end, and they only remember Hooper directing them, yet you say Hooper doesn’t deserve recognition for this film’s brilliance.

[jkoffman]

At least the constant posts asking when the UHD is coming are short.

[scififan73]

I'm in the camp that this is more Spielberg than Hooper. It might surprise some that i DO like Hooper, his Salem's Lot and Lifeforce are twistedly brilliant.
However, once you see the work of director's like Kubrick, Kurosawa,Bergman,Scorsese, Hitchcock and their like you start to see directing on the master level. And, sorry to Tobe fans out there but Spielberg is either in that group or certainly closer to them than he is.
Poltergeist really DOES seem more polished than Hooper's usual fare, for whatever reason.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by scififan73

I'm in the camp that this is more Spielberg than Hooper. It might surprise some that i DO like Hooper, his Salem's Lot and Lifeforce are twistedly brilliant.
However, once you see the work of director's like Kubrick, Kurosawa,Bergman,Scorsese, Hitchcock and their like you start to see directing on the master level. And, sorry to Tobe fans out there but Spielberg is either in that group or certainly closer to them than he is.
Poltergeist really DOES seem more polished than Hooper's usual fare, for whatever reason.

Steven Spielberg's touch is all over Poltergeist. Not only you see it, you can feel it. Everybody can see from the git go, but some people just refuse to acknowledge the fact. I've never doubt the dispute for a second, and the Tobe Hooper's fans are the only ones who's challenging it. I like both directors and I don't like one more than the other, it's just Spielberg have more directorial influence in Poltergeist than Hooper.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by scififan73

I'm in the camp that this is more Spielberg than Hooper. It might surprise some that i DO like Hooper, his Salem's Lot and Lifeforce are twistedly brilliant.
However, once you see the work of director's like Kubrick, Kurosawa,Bergman,Scorsese, Hitchcock and their like you start to see directing on the master level. And, sorry to Tobe fans out there but Spielberg is either in that group or certainly closer to them than he is.
Poltergeist really DOES seem more polished than Hooper's usual fare, for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by slimdude

Steven Spielberg's touch is all over Poltergeist. Not only you see it, you can feel it. Everybody can see from the git go, but some people just refuse to acknowledge the fact. I've never doubt the dispute for a second, and the Tobe Hooper's fans are the only ones who's challenging it. I like both directors and I don't like one more than the other, it's just Spielberg have more directorial influence in Poltergeist than Hooper.

This is personal evaluation. That many disagree with (yes, many, see previous post for links to those who seem as opinionated as I).

This is evidence, two provided of which allow little second guessing:




You’re welcome to your opinion. Know it is not supported by the most airtight evidence (which is why I am here; not saying completely airtight).

[Jay H.]

Too many words.

[Kyle15]

I err on the edge that this is a Nightmare Before Christmas situation. We have written testimony from those on set and the DGA getting their hands in the pot. Spielberg wrote it and Tobe directed that vision. We can all hug now.