Speiglhberg, The definite anti-christ

[The Bard]

I read in the free mag that I get from Suncoast every once in a blue moon that Speilberg is planing to "Airbrush Out" all handguns for the DVD version of E.T.

Does anyone know why Speilberg gets such a hard on about guns? In JP2 seemingly all charectors who were equipped and trained with guns died, while an annoying as all hell 12 year old survived and the doctors and mathmatician with no gun proficinicies. Let alone the fact that a Tyransarus Rex running down the middle of Los Angleles would make it about two blocks before everyone owning a gun would open fire and kill the mother f'er.

I wonder if Speigberg will airbrush out Reces Pieces as a way of being anti-commercialism in movies. Nah, that would only make about as much sense as airbrushing out all the handguns in E.T.

He's also got plans to replace all guns in Saving Private Ryan with flowers, and all the Nazis with happy fat dutch people.

Sometimes Technology sucks.

[The Bard]

Chris Culmbofo, who directed Mccauly Calkin told the kid who was Harry Potter to "Run Like Hell" if Micheal Jackson ever invitied him to NeverLand.

[Neville]

Damn! Now I have to defend Spielberg... Never though I actually had to do this... Ok, Spielberg is responsible of many of the bad ideas that today rule film industry, he is so conservative he may be George Bush Jr favourite film director, and when pursuing money he has made some of the worst movies ever.

BUT he is an awesome film director, and somebody who has taken so much risk and put so much bollocks in making films as impressive as "A.I.", even knowing he was going to be illtreated by all film reviewers and viewers, deserves some credit. In my country there is no censorship of any kind, so you will understand that I am against it, and I find the ideas you describe about "E.T." stupid, but what the hell, let him do, after all it is his own movie... if you don't like the idea, just don't watch the censored cut and buy the old one while you still can. But anyway, I don't think anybody watches "E.T.." for the violence.

[Flangepart]

What counrty is your home, Neville? Just Curious. True, Speilberg is talented, and i cried during Pvt. Ryan, and i wasen't alone. Band of Brothers is a great show,too. But....if he diden't want guns in E.T., why  did he put them there the first time? True, its his movie, but it does make me wonder what the heck he thinks he's doing. Conservitive? Speilberg? I don't think so! As the Bard said, Being gunless seems to be the only way to survive being Dino fodder in Jurassic park.......and i don't buy it. I just don't buy it. Firearms are the ONLY things that allow humans to compeat with such creatures, as per survival. Peter Hathaway Capstick was a hunter,game warden, and safari guide in Africa, and he hunted the big five, the five deadliest animals there. Lion,leopard,Cape Buffalo, Elephant, and black rhino....Read his book, "Death in the Dark Continent", and you'll see how guns are the only way humans have a chance aginst the red tooth and claw on the wild. And remember...The Cape buffalo, Elephant and Rhino are Herbivores...and look how deadly they can be!

[Cullen]

"The Cape buffalo, Elephant and Rhino are Herbivores...and look how deadly they can be"

Don't  forget the Hippopotamus.  They look harmless enough (I mean, relatively speaking), but from what I've heard, they have nasty tempers.

[Chadzilla]

According to a documentary I saw on the Discovery Channel, are the most dangerous animals (in terms of aggressive temperant and unprovoked attacking with intent to kill) in Africa, bar none.  Go figure.

[Andrew]

The main problem with them is that they are territorial and invariably attack while we (soft, brittle humans) are in the water.  Liquid is not our native environment to say the least, then add a few tons of thrashing hippo, teeth and all.

Andrew

[AndyC]

I'm trying to figure out what was impressive about AI. It ripped off ideas from older and better movies, and missed a lot of good opportunities. A lot of things in it simply made no sense, but were necessary to drive the plot forward. The Dr. Know segment was ridiculously out of place, and a less-than-subtle cameo. By far, the worst thing was the pointless, sappy, confusing, overlong and completely unnecessary ending that was tacked on after the film could have been brought to a much more meaningful and satisfying conclusion.

I don't know if I'd call Spielberg the antichrist, but removing the guns from ET, if this story is true, is a pretty dumb thing to do. As for it being Spielberg's film, to do with as he likes, I would argue that a work that has been released to the public, and been a part of popular culture for 20 years, should, on some level (albeit not a legal one) belong to the world. Spielberg might be within his rights to go back and tinker with a movie that holds so many good memories for so many people, but from an artistic point of view, I think it's wrong for him to mess with what he has already created. You'd never see a painter walk into a gallery and retouch some famous picture because he's turned into a bleeding heart. We seem to have drawn a line between art films and commercial films. Film is an art form, whatever it's motivation. If Spielberg considers himself an artist, and not just a Hollywood hack, he'd treat his work with a little respect.

[Neville]

To Flangepart: Just for the record, I live in Spain, and true, there is no censorship. But before you think how good that is, consider that having not censorship in my country I had to endure more footage of "Showgirls" or "Colour of the night" than anybody else! Just kidding. Actually, is one of the things I like the most of my country.

About Jurassic Park & Sequels, I never said anything about them, and of course I agree guns would be useful in that situation. Anyway, it has anything to do with what I was saying. I was talking about Spielberg and suddenly I found myself in a National Geographic forum. Weird.

To AndyC: True, AI is not a masterpiece (not that I said that!), and of course it ripped off a lot of things from other films (who doesn't these days!). But I still thing it is a nice movie, visually attractive and thought-provoking, which is more than I can say of many of the films that hit the screens lately. I still think we need more movies like AI. You are absolutely right about what you say about E.T. Spielberg would be a fool to do that, but I still think The bard went too far.

About the end of A.I., I don't think it is so bad. How possitive is an ending were the only representatives of mankind and its feelings are a clone and a robot, who represent unreal feelings to an extraterrestial audience? True, the tone is too melodramatic. I don't know if Spielberg tried to run towards known territory or just went too far with the cruel fairy-tale idea. Still an interesting movie, otherwise we would not be discussing it, don't you think?

[AndyC]

One of the things I had against the ending was that it wasn't made terribly clear that those were not extraterrestrials, but advanced robots who outlasted humanity. One of the few places the movie was subtle, and it appears to have been a mistake. Personally, I would have ended it with the main character (David?) under the ferris wheel. The narrator tells of him wishing to the good fairy for many years, as humanity falls and the earth freezes, then fade to black and roll the credits. That would have blown me away as a really thought-provoking and gutsy ending. I think Spielberg missed the mark in a few other places as well.

I'm not saying AI was a bad film, just very disappointing, because it could have been a great film.

[Flangepart]

Dear Neville. Spain? Cool! This site does get around. About my comments on J. Park and Lost World, i guess i was reacting to the percived reason Speilberg was dumping the gun images in E.T.  "After market Political Correctness." i supose you could call it. The Bard's point i think revolved around this ,as it effected the plot of Lost World. Ken Begg's "9 reasons i hate Jurrasic park" is a classic, and says all i can think of on the topic. When you have your characters doing illogical, emotionaly based things, you've gon from Science Fiction, to pure fantasy. Not bad in principle....but please, be consistant!

[Cullen]

While I don't like the ending of AI myself, I prefer it to leaving David under the Ferris wheel.  To me, it's sort of like wishing Pinocchio never escaped the whale, or that he remained a wooden puppet.  It seems heartless and needlessly cruel to something that really didn't do anything to deserve what had happened to it.  It harks too far back to the early fair tales, which were nasty just because they could be.

I don't mind sad ending, don't get me wrong.  The ending of "King Leer", where Leer and his beloved daughter Cornelia die (on Shakespeare’s whim, no less) works for me.  Leer acted poorly and paid the price for his actions.  The price was far too steep, but at least he had some say in things.  Plus, it goes with Shakespeare’s overall theme about the duties of kings.

At no point does David have a choice.  He is cut out of the only life he has even known and cast aside, never to go back to the fields he knew (to steal from Dunsany).  Even at the end, he only gets a single day back.  Then, for the rest of his existence, he'll be alone.

Now, why the super-androids at the end didn't just BUILD A DUPLICATE MOTHER FOR HIM, that I can not say.  Nor does their explanation on why they can bring his mother back make any sense to me at all.  Which is my problem with AI.

Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

[Cullen]

"When you have your characters doing illogical, emotionaly based things, you've gone from Science Fiction, to pure fantasy."

Actually, you're wrong.  Some of the best Science Fiction has people doing illogical, emotionally based things, and some of the best Fantasy has people doing rational, emotionless things.  It is how these actions are presented that makes a diffrence, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Just as a for instance, take "Aliens".  There is some seriously emotional things going on.  Most of the descisions made are based on emotion.  It is still Science Fiction.

"Not bad in principle....but please, be consistant!"

Judging by the end, what I think you meant to say was that the characters should stay true to themselves, and not jerk about on writer/director's whim.  Which is a valid point.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth like that, but I am a writer who works in Fantasy, as well as various other genres.  The last part of you post really got to the "Let's-stick-our-nose-into-this-discussion" part of me.  No offense intended.

[AndyC]

I thought bringing David's mother back was just a clever lie on the part of the robots, intended to give him closure. They pulled the image from his mind, and used it to create an illusion. It was all in his mind. Knowing that he had to move on, and could not live on an illusion, they told him that it could only be for a day. The explanation made no sense to us, but it was enough for David's childlike understanding. He did, after all, believe a statue could turn him into a real boy.

This is just an interpretation. If this is, in fact, what was intended, the movie didn't make it clear. Beat the audience over the head with the obvious Pinocchio analogy throughout, and start giving us credit when things could actually use a little clarification.

[Cullen]

That's an interesting point, and makes FAR more sense than the explanation they give in the movie.  I don't think that's the case, but is still doesn't explain why they don't just rebuild the mother from his memories.  It seemed logical enough to me, so much so that I kept expecting it to come up.

Oh well.