Poltergeist (1982) (25th Anniversary Deluxe Edition)

[starsteam]

Came across this casual bit of trivia and laughed when I realized the implication sneaked in.

[Show spoiler]

Or maybe Hooper actually owns Spielberg's hands. That would explain a lot.

[hanshotfirst1138]

Originally Posted by Chumley

That can still get you pregnant.

Thank you, thank you. He’s here all week.

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

From thedigitalbits today:

"It should be noted that Steven Spielberg’s Poltergeist and Michael Curtiz’s Casablanca also celebrate major anniversaries next year (the 40th and 80th, respectively), so consider those possible for release in 4K next year as well. (But note that I don’t have any kind of confirmation on those as yet.) Our 4K Ultra HD Release List here at The Bits has been updated accordingly."

Really?? LOL I'm firmly in the "this is probably a Spielberg film" camp, but Bill knows better than this...

To be fair, when the producer is more famous, sometimes people casually refer to the film as theirs. It’s sort of like referring to Euopacorp movies as Besson’s. It’s not technically correct, but I can see why someone would do it.

[Martoto]

IF you have two directors on set, even if they were splitting the work 50/50, there's always going to be different perceptions about who THE director was on the movie. And I'm sure that one would likely be seen as the one and only director by some of the people on that set. That's just human nature and the nature of personality. It also explains why Spielberg said things that made it appear to everyone that he was intentionally claiming sole authorship of the finished film and effectively removing any credit from Hooper. He later apologised for that and pleaded that it was not his intention. I believe that to be the case. But it is also fair to say that it was fairly characteristic of Steven to do that kind of thing back then.

When crew members of Hooper's other films talk about their experience working with Tobe there is always a mixture of great fondness and familiarity. But the other side of that is that a lot of the time that kind of familiarity can erode respect for the leader's authority. So there's that too.

I just wish this BS had been put to rest a long time ago with a permanent banner attached to the movie "From Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper" like some other collaborations did at the time - Stephen King and George Romero for example.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by starsteam

Came across this casual bit of trivia and laughed when I realized the implication sneaked in.

[Show spoiler]

Or maybe Hooper actually owns Spielberg's hands. That would explain a lot.

In this case, Hooper does own Spielberg’s hands. He was the one perceiving the action of the individual in front of the camera... as directors do.

Originally Posted by Martoto

IF you have two directors on set, even if they were splitting the work 50/50, there's always going to be different perceptions about who THE director was on the movie. And I'm sure that one would likely be seen as the one and only director by some of the people on that set. That's just human nature and the nature of personality. It also explains why Spielberg said things that made it appear to everyone that he was intentionally claiming sole authorship of the finished film and effectively removing any credit from Hooper. He later apologised for that and pleaded that it was not his intention. I believe that to be the case. But it is also fair to say that it was fairly characteristic of Steven to do that kind of thing back then.

Yet, once again, all the actors - those whom a director’s work is integral to - state Hooper was at all times the director. Also, 50/50 is a made up ratio, even used as a hypothetical. No one has claimed 50/50, 60/40, 20/80. It’s us doing that guess work. One crew member states Spielberg directed the film “really” despite also saying Hooper was left alone to do the work “sometimes.” Two principle actors state Hooper was the “one in charge”/“only directed me.” Another principle actor states Spielberg was “not really there on set that much.” We just got a contribution stating a 1st AD claimed Hooper shot >90% independently.

Your evaluation is very accurate. It seems the selected crew members - often of partial POV, such as an ILM head, a make up man in his workshop a lot, and an AC who was one of many ACs, and seemed mainly there to assist his brother as he was hardly an experienced set worker at that point (John Leonetti had only two credits prior) - seem to gravitate to Spielberg’s 100-pound gorilla weight. Spielberg indeed seemed to speak out of turn according to his boastful personality, but he indeed walked back comments, claimed he was misquoted (as he did for a TIME article), or was responding to questions directly posed to him regarding the rumors. I also don’t blame Spielberg but mainly a press cycle on overdrive and the studio that supported it.

So you are right in all cases.

When crew members of Hooper's other films talk about their experience working with Tobe there is always a mixture of great fondness and familiarity. But the other side of that is that a lot of the time that kind of familiarity can erode respect for the leader's authority. So there's that too.

Yes, Hooper was much less an authoritarian. Clearly it was perceived as weakness but we’ve learned that is not as everyone saw it, and he threw his creative weight through quieter means.

I just wish this BS had been put to rest a long time ago with a permanent banner attached to the movie "From Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper" like some other collaborations did at the time - Stephen King and George Romero for example.

We can very much blame local L.A. rags, then, as they were the first publications to print the rumors after the first week of shooting, merely from talking to “visitors on set” and unnamed “high-up production personnel.” (I believe the Los Angeles Herald Examiner was the initial culprit.)

[ptsherm]

Also, a ratio may be arrived at, but it would need more than perception but actual knowledge of how a producer and director role, responsibilities, and concerns might differ. Spielberg himself claims he was de facto “line-producer” (no actual line producer is credited) and he worked closely with Richard Edlund when FX shots were being shot (one might presume they were often going on simultaneously - not as a rule, but likely sometimes - with 1st Unit shooting, which Hooper would be doing). When Spielberg was seen “co-directing,” it would likely involve FX heavy scenes or scenes that were seemingly brainstormed on the spot (there is the story of Spielberg being the one pulling the door when JoBeth Williams ventures to open the children’s bedroom door and hears the vacuuming sound, a moment that does not exist in the shooting script). Hooper was free to do what he liked directing the moment to moment (as evinced by statements in support of him), but he acknowledged a highly collaborative set and the partnership he had with his producer and writer, and the possibility of ideas coming to the fore through his deliberations with those around him.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

Also, 50/50 is a made up ratio, even used as a hypothetical. No one has claimed 50/50, 60/40, 20/80.

I'm just using that as a hypothetical scenario to illustrate that sometimes people are perceived differently even though they are putting in the same hours and the same work.

The actors who took part in the legendary casting process for Star Wars thought that De Palma was the director of that movie thanks to him and George holding joint calls for it and Carrie. Crew members working on the set of Star Wars did not know that Lucas was the director until weeks into the shoot. I'd bet if Spielberg spent two days on that set a good chunk of people that worked on those days would come away thinking that Steven had directed that movie too.

[Chumley]

Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138

Thank you, thank you. He’s here all week.

I was supposed to be here all week. Just found out they're replacing me with Carrot Top.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by ptsherm

Also, a ratio may be arrived at, but it would need more than perception but actual knowledge of how a producer and director role, responsibilities, and concerns might differ. Spielberg himself claims he was de facto “line-producer” (no actual line producer is credited) and he worked closely with Richard Edlund when FX shots were being shot (one might presume they were often going on simultaneously - not as a rule, but likely sometimes - with 1st Unit shooting, which Hooper would be doing). When Spielberg was seen “co-directing,” it would likely involve FX heavy scenes or scenes that were seemingly brainstormed on the spot (there is the story of Spielberg being the one pulling the door when JoBeth Williams ventures to open the children’s bedroom door and hears the vacuuming sound, a moment that does not exist in the shooting script). Hooper was free to do what he liked directing the moment to moment (as evinced by statements in support of him), but he acknowledged a highly collaborative set and the partnership he had with his producer and writer, and the possibility of ideas coming to the fore through his deliberations with those around him.

I’d like to just swallow all of this. It sounds totally reasonable. But if that’s the case, why all the secrecy for years, and the total lack of extras on every release this film’s ever had? They could definitely tamp down these “unfounded” rumors with some honest-to-goodness behind-the-scenes material for a change.

[ptsherm]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I’d like to just swallow all of this. It sounds totally reasonable. But if that’s the case, why all the secrecy for years, and the total lack of extras on every release this film’s ever had? They could definitely tamp down these “unfounded” rumors with some honest-to-goodness behind-the-scenes material for a change.

Well, Spielberg has always been highly controlling over the mystique of his productions. Even “Goonies” and “Gremlins” lack some transparency in terms of letting any outside label or video company not Amblin or the studio produce extras for them. You don’t see random BtS footage because I’m sure the only people with video cameras on the set were Frank Marshall himself, whereas other sets are less strict family affairs. “Poltergeist” simply has tons of baggage, from the DGA lawsuit over the rumors, to the plagiarism lawsuit over the script that took up much of the afterlife of this film up to ‘83/‘84, to whatever tumult did occur between Hooper and Spielberg on the set. I’m shocked Used Cars got a commentary considering a similar incident with Spielberg butting in occurred, though of course Zemeckis and Spielberg are buds and naturally Zemeckis and Russell don’t go into that. Anyway, what’s more likely, that special features are forgone because it’s messy and complicated, or because there’s a secret gag order to continue a cover-up, a gag order three cast members don’t seem to be adhering to? I don’t believe in the curse, only tragedies, but in terms of this film as something open to special features... it’s a bit too cursed.

[Donl1282]

The UHD release is supposed to happen this year. Will it likely be released around June the month the original film was released or around October? I hope we will get some extras on the upcoming release.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Donl1282

The UHD release is supposed to happen this year. Will it likely be released around June the month the original film was released or around October? I hope we will get some extras on the upcoming release.

As do I. This movie DESERVES some quality extras. It’s been 40 freakin’ years - enough with the secrecy over the production. Give us some truly in-depth docs for a change! I saw this restoration on the big screen last year and it was fantastic. If the UHD looks like that did, we’re all in for a huge treat.

[Swissangel4616]

hopefully a 4K 40th anniversary is coming this year (June 2022)

[Gmamalis6]

I'm sure that this year we'll see a new 4K UHD by Warner with DTS-HD MA 5.1 tracks just like with many 80s movies by Warner like The Goonies, Gremlins, Beetlejuice.

[Gmamalis6]

Originally Posted by Swissangel4616

hopefully a 4K 40th anniversary is coming this year (June 2022)

I'm sure that in native 4K will look stunning and with Warner's regular DTS-HD MA 5.1 tracks on the 4K just like with many 80s films released in 4K by Warner like The Goonies, Gremlins, Beetlejuice it will be even stunning. If and I'm a little frustrated that Warner hasn't achieved to do a new Dolby Atmos remix on many 4K releases of the 80s films.

[Matt89]

Screw Atmos remixes of 80s films, that’s the last thing we need (re: The Road Warrior). As long as this gets a nice restoration with a good encode and original lossless audio, I’m good. Don’t even really care about extras, this movie deserves better than that creaky VC-1 codec.

~Matt

[KManX89]

Originally Posted by Donl1282

The UHD release is supposed to happen this year. Will it likely be released around June the month the original film was released or around October? I hope we will get some extras on the upcoming release.

Apparently, it's supposed to be releasing in October of this year.

With this and The Lost Boys getting UHD releases, us 4K horror fanatics are getting spoiled rotten this year.

[jkoffman]

Originally Posted by KManX89

Apparently, it's supposed to be releasing in October of this year.

With this and The Lost Boys getting UHD releases, us 4K horror fanatics are getting spoiled rotten this year.

It surely could be coming this year, but that account cannot be trusted and purposefully releases false info and images. They've had to change their name many times now. Don't give them much attention.

[yellowcakeuf6]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Screw Atmos remixes of 80s films, that’s the last thing we need (re: The Road Warrior). As long as this gets a nice restoration with a good encode and original lossless audio, I’m good. Don’t even really care about extras, this movie deserves better than that creaky VC-1 codec.

~Matt

Believe it or not, the lossy 2.0 Dolby Surround track on the BD is fantastic played back with Pro Logic.

[SeanJoyce]

Just looking forward to the new Spielberg interview where he goes in-depth about all of his directorial work on Poltergeist.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Just looking forward to the new Spielberg interview where he goes in-depth about all of his directorial work on Poltergeist.

May as well.

Hooper's dead now and I doubt the director's guild give a shit anymore.