Originally Posted By Imagineer This Did anyone see Hook? It wasn't a direct remake, but it was Spielberg's version of Peter Pan as a grown up. What would Steven do with Mary Poppins 2?
Originally Posted By wonderingalice *LOL* BrotherDave... Imagineer This... I saw "Hook," but aside from spotting the Beatles posters in the girl's room (I'm a huge fan), it pretty much left me cold. The Mary Poppins/Spielberg thing is just a hoax.
Originally Posted By cstephens oc_dean wrote: > I saw a script on someone's desk entitled "Mary Poppins sequel". > So, it's taken them a decade and a half to either continue or remake the story. > They were bound to do it, .... eventually. You did see the part where this was a hoax, right? Lots of scripts get written. Few are made. /cs
Originally Posted By woody >>You consider these recent movies terrible? I don't.<< In part, I hated the movies. In part, I won't see it because of the subject matter. "A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)" Horrible. I hated it. Disturbing movie involving strange robots and worse humans. "Minority Report (2002)" Another horrible movie. I hated it. Gives eyeball plucking new meaning. "Catch Me If You Can (2002)" Did not watch it. Not interesting enough for me to care. "The Terminal (2004)" Did not watch it. Pretty mundane movie in a airport terminal. Sounds like Tom Hank's other island movie. "War of the Worlds (2005)" Did not watch it. The reviews described it as a humans are idiots and they just run away without fighting. A pacifist movie. "Munich (2005)" Another pacifist movie. I can't believe he sided against the Israeli Jews with this film. Yes, his movies are increasingly getting worse. Also, he messed up the Indiana Jones trilogy after the promising first movie.
Originally Posted By jasmine7 Re War of the Worlds: <A pacifist movie.> Okay, now I haven't seen this movie, either (because of Tom Cruise and his off-screen antics), but that would be the last phrase I could come up with for that film. After all, how does one fight an other-world attack? Not every sci-fi movie needs to be a blast-the-aliens extravaganza! <<Also, he messed up the Indiana Jones trilogy after the promising first movie<< I know I'm rare because I'm one of the few who actually likes Temple of Doom, but c'mon! Spielberg completely made up for it with Last Crusade. You cannot get any better than Sean Connery as Indiana's pop. That movie is sheer exhiliration from start to finish, and I'd also say it's one of Spielberg's best.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <"War of the Worlds (2005)" Did not watch it. The reviews described it as a humans are idiots and they just run away without fighting. A pacifist movie.> Actually, had you watched the movie you'd know that those tough, fightin' guys who stood their grown got vaporized. But I suppose they should be saluted. A pacifist movie. LOL! <"The Terminal (2004)" Did not watch it. Pretty mundane movie in a airport terminal. Sounds like Tom Hank's other island movie.> You should check it out. It's actually a charming little movie. But not one to be taken so literally. It's more of a fable -- like something out of a storybook. What are some of Spielberg's movies that you do like, woody?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder What I don't understand is how Catch Me If You Can would be found "not interesting." It's a true, fascinating story, and while the movie wasn't as good as the book, it was still a decent movie. Go figure.
Originally Posted By Kylesmom I enjoyed Catch Me if You Can, but found Minority Report practically unwatchable.
Originally Posted By woody I liked these movies. The younger Spielberg. Jaws, the first Indiana Jones, ET, Close Encounters, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan. Hook was mildly interesting.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I haven't seen Munich yet but here's an interview with Spielberg: <a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051225/PEOPLE/512250311" target="_blank">http://rogerebert.suntimes.com /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051225/PEOPLE/512250311</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<"War of the Worlds (2005)" Did not watch it. The reviews described it as a humans are idiots and they just run away without fighting. A pacifist movie.>> Actually some of the humans did fight back.
Originally Posted By woody I forgot to add Jurassic Park on my good list. "Actually some of the humans did fight back." But the problem was they were not portrayed to be effective and the conflict ended by some virus. The people that fought are portrayed as right wing gun fanatics ironically by Tim Robbins.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Ok, maybe Jim and I are alone here. I loved the Terminal, I thought it had a lot of heart. I also loved Catch Me IF You Can - a fun movie full of twists and turns. I also really enjoyed Minority Report and AI. I haven't seen War of the Worlds yet, but I did get it for Christmas, so I hope to remedy that soon. LOVED Hook - I can't understand why this movie is so maligned - except for the little girl singing (yuk).
Originally Posted By jasmine7 <<LOVED Hook - I can't understand why this movie is so maligned - except for the little girl singing (yuk).<< Totally agree, dave. It's one of my all-time favorite movies, hands-down.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <But the problem was they were not portrayed to be effective and the conflict ended by some virus. The people that fought are portrayed as right wing gun fanatics ironically by Tim Robbins.> Obviously, you didn't see the movie. There were many scenes with the good ol' American military taking their shots at the invading aliens. They were also vaporized. Why don't you just watch 'War of the Worlds' -- it's an easy-to-watch, popcorn movie, and pretty inocuous, really. I didn't see all the anti-war subliminal messages, but maybe I'm just not bright enough.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "Ok, maybe Jim and I are alone here. I loved the Terminal, I thought it had a lot of heart." << I loved it too. It was a very sweet and charming film. I also found it rather refreshing that the film industry's most successful director and the actor that is currently the top box-office draw would team up on such a small, basically innocuous film that simply had a nice story to tell. For the record, I was one of those that considered "A.I." to be something of a masterpiece, although I do wonder a bit what the film might have been had Stanley Kubrick survived to complete the film. For those that don't know, Kubrick intended to produce and write the film with Spielberg directing. What was finally made was kind of a partial fruition of that collaboration. The only recent Spielberg film that I really haven't liked was "Minority Report". The story and general approach simply left me cold. The film certainly was made with Spielberg's usual skill, but I guess that Spielberg's sensibilities weren't quite able to overcome my typical inability to connect with Philip K. Dick's concepts. Finally, with regard to Woody's comment: >> ""Munich (2005)" Another pacifist movie. I can't believe he sided against the Israeli Jews with this film." << It is incredibly clear to me that he hasn't seen this film. His characterization of it couldn't be further from what the film actually contains. It most certainly doesn't even come close to "siding against" the Israelis. I suppose it might be classified as a "pacifist" film by some from the standpoint that it asks serious questions about the wisdom of an "eye for an eye" approach to confronting acts of evil, but it really is a film that pretty directly confronts the immense complexity of the conflict and doesn't pretend that there are easy answers. It is a rather remarkable movie. -Jeff
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <But is there anyone who could perform this better than Van Dyke & Andrews?< Plain and simple - NO In fact, if someone wanted to do something with the story, why not have them reprise their roles in a new story - original plot line -- not a stupid remake..... Both look amazing for their ages -- hard to believe DVD is 80 ! And Julie Andrews a youngster @ 70.
Originally Posted By JeffG While I agree that Andrews and Van Dyke could probably still play the roles from a physical standpoint, the one major obsticle is that Julie Andrews no longer is really capable of any kind of extensive singing. They would likely have to either make the film a non-musical, have someone else dub her singing (almost an unthinkable idea), or simply not include any songs for Mary Poppins. None of those seem like a particularly acceptable approach. I realize that I responded to the side line about Spielberg's recent films, but didn't really comment about the original (apparently false) rumor. Honestly, I don't know that I really think that it would be so sacreligious to attempt a remake of "Mary Poppins", particularly if a major goal of it was to make a film that was more true to the original books. The Disney film is absolutely outstanding, of course, but it isn't an especially faithful adaptation. This year alone, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "King Kong" have certainly shown that is is very possible to make respectable and well-received remakes even of highly regarded films. The film's deviations from the original books are a large part of the reason why the recent stage adaptation varies so greatly from the film. Even though it uses most of the songs from the film, even those are almost entirely used in different contexts than they were in the film. If the stage show turns out to be an enormous success internationally, I can certainly see where there might be some interest in doing another film that more closely matches the stage show's storyline. As for the idea of Spielberg directing it, the rumor really wasn't that far fetched. He has said for years that a musical is one type of film that he would like to direct, although he has admitted that he is somewhat intimidated by the idea. The opening sequence of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was entirely his idea and basically was a small attempt to somewhat fulfill that. The closest that he previously came to doing a musical was a planned new musical film of "Peter Pan". This was back in the 1980s and was intended as a starring vehicle for Michael Jackson. As Jackson's star started to fade, the project eventually was dropped. It did get far enough along that John Williams wrote a number of songs for the project, two of which actually make it into "Hook" largely intact. The melodies from some of the other songs were incorporated into that film's score. Spielberg has really been expanding into new genres quite a bit in recent years and overall stretching his craft. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he finally does direct a musical in the next several years. Even though it is apparently untrue now, I'm not sure this rumor was exceptionally far fetched. -Jeff
Originally Posted By arstogas You consider these recent movies terrible? I don't. A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) Blechh. Minority Report (2002) Loaded with problems, what a mess of a movie. Catch Me If You Can (2002) Lovely. Effortless. His best film in years. But almost too simple for a guy as talented as Spielberg. The Terminal (2004) Cute. Simple. Not much there, ultimately. War of the Worlds (2005) Ugh. What a waste. Munich (2005) Not too excited about this film. And when you add in HOOK, JURASSIC PARK 2, and everything following the first twenty minutes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, the last seventeen years of movies from Spielberg have been largely inauspicious and overrated. He's got one truly great film, SCHINDLER'S LIST, in the last decade and a half. Back on topic, MARY POPPINS will eventually be remade. That's almost an inevitability. If I had to choose the director, I'd say Brad Bird or Baz Luhrman. I doubt Brad would take the job, though.
