|
Post by fantasyarchipelago on Jun 22, 2011 12:20:28 GMT -5
So, in short, every last inch of this is made of cliche and dullness, except for the bits that are stupid and dullĀ This is the most concise and well expressed reason as to why Falling Skies is full of Spiel-fail.
|
|
artw
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by artw on Jun 22, 2011 12:40:22 GMT -5
Well, lets not get it wrong here - Spielberg has spun gold out of a similar set of ingredients before. But this is not spun gold, this is poop.
Also, really, it has Spielbergism by the bucket-load but it doesn't really feel like something of his. I hate to dump on Jericho because I loved Jericho, and it's high points were very hig, but it feels very much like one of the duller episodes of Jericho, one where characters spend the majority of it milling about without much idea what to do, with aliens and horrid the Spielbergisms tacked on.
|
|
|
Post by PhoBWanKenobi on Jun 22, 2011 13:00:00 GMT -5
I'm going to ask something that's going to reveal my movie-ignorance, but what does it really mean that Spielberg is a producer on this, or, say, Super 8? Both seemed to have nods toward narrative elements that are considered classics of his (kids, basically), but neither felt particularly true to the usual integrity of Spielberg's writing, which goes so much deeper than "There's a cute kid." I know as a producer, he's not writing the stuff, but he signs off on it, right?
|
|
artw
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by artw on Jun 22, 2011 13:12:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure - I get the feeling that is more of a branding and general direction thing than a strong creative direction thing.
It's not really looking good for Terra Nova, is it?
|
|
|
Post by misslapin on Jun 22, 2011 13:24:26 GMT -5
OK this is far from an expert opinion (I used to be an actor) but here's the deal on the producer. The producer picks the project, usually in the form of a story that is pitched to them. Basically they get investors and backing, but to do that they have control over the director, actors, even the script . Why? Because investors don't want to back projects that will crash and burn, and so they look for things like star power, popular story trends, and big name directors. The previous success of the producer also plays into that equation. While the director is often touted as the one who has absolute control on the set, that's not entirely true. Some high end directors and writers get more control over their work than others, but lots of cases the producer will watch the beginning rushes of a project and yank anyone including the director if they are concerned about the direction the project is going. For a more detailed explanation you can go here www.slate.com/id/2211696/Oh I should add-lots of people don't know the diff between a producer and director and the movie industry capitalizes on that. A key example: Quentin Tarantino Presents Hostel. Quentin was an executive producer on Hostel, but he was far better known to the general public than our friend Eli Roth (Cabin Fever)-hence pushing Quentin's name. I suspect the same thing is at play here. Spielberg is a very well known director and, more specifically, has directed some of the most successful movies about human/alien interaction. Thus, hyping Speilberg's involvement in the project makes sound marketing sense with this particular show.
|
|
|
Post by PhoBWanKenobi on Jun 22, 2011 15:33:48 GMT -5
OK this is far from an expert opinion (I used to be an actor) but here's the deal on the producer. The producer picks the project, usually in the form of a story that is pitched to them. Basically they get investors and backing, but to do that they have control over the director, actors, even the script . Why? Because investors don't want to back projects that will crash and burn, and so they look for things like star power, popular story trends, and big name directors. The previous success of the producer also plays into that equation. While the director is often touted as the one who has absolute control on the set, that's not entirely true. Some high end directors and writers get more control over their work than others, but lots of cases the producer will watch the beginning rushes of a project and yank anyone including the director if they are concerned about the direction the project is going. For a more detailed explanation you can go here www.slate.com/id/2211696/Oh I should add-lots of people don't know the diff between a producer and director and the movie industry capitalizes on that. A key example: Quentin Tarantino Presents Hostel. Quentin was an executive producer on Hostel, but he was far better known to the general public than our friend Eli Roth (Cabin Fever)-hence pushing Quentin's name. I suspect the same thing is at play here. Spielberg is a very well known director and, more specifically, has directed some of the most successful movies about human/alien interaction. Thus, hyping Speilberg's involvement in the project makes sound marketing sense with this particular show. Awesome explanation! Thanks misslapin.
|
|
|
Post by fantasyarchipelago on Jun 22, 2011 15:40:58 GMT -5
Well, lets not get it wrong here - Spielberg has spun gold out of a similar set of ingredients before. But this is not spun gold, this is poop. Also, really, it has Spielbergism by the bucket-load but it doesn't really feel like something of his. I hate to dump on Jericho because I loved Jericho, and it's high points were very hig, but it feels very much like one of the duller episodes of Jericho, one where characters spend the majority of it milling about without much idea what to do, with aliens and horrid the Spielbergisms tacked on. I like some Spielberg stuff, but I feel just like the characters in South Park did about Lucas and Spielberg "raping" Indiana Jones. I think J.J. Abrams put out a more high quality "Spielberg" product with Super 8 than Spielberg can actually concoct nowadays. That's not a good thing, not even taking into account that I thought Super 8 was average.
|
|
tmkf
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by tmkf on Jun 22, 2011 15:45:10 GMT -5
UGH. It takes a particularly bad show to make me dislike handycam footage of bearded dudes running around with assault rifles a la Half-Life 2.
|
|
artw
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by artw on Jun 22, 2011 16:01:38 GMT -5
I'm disliking a show with robots and spaceships in it! How the hell does that happen? I stuck with BSG till the bitter end, even when I knew they had no clue what they were doing!
|
|
|
Post by misslapin on Jun 28, 2011 1:13:34 GMT -5
OK so I watched the second episode (kinda I was doing chores). So now terrorist guy is the new camp chef! That was fast. The show continues to 1. unfold in entirely predictable ways (stuff happens, Noah Wylie overtly connects it to history and then stares off with a tormented expression for WAY TOO LONG) 2. the pace is all wrong. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I actually enjoyed the reboot of V far more than this show. I'm officially bowing out (though unofficially I will probably still watch from time to time in the utterly misguided belief that the show will SUDDENLY IMPROVE if only I believe in it enough-kinda like reviving Tinkerbell in Peter Pan).
|
|
artw
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by artw on Jun 28, 2011 11:00:43 GMT -5
Deleted unseen.
V was terrible, ridiculous and frequently dull for long stretches, but at least it had curiosity value. This lacks even that.
|
|
|
Post by armyofkittens on Jul 9, 2011 5:26:57 GMT -5
I started watching the pilot the other day while I was sofa-bound doing Boring Medical Thing. It was so unbelievably boring that I actually crab-walked across the room to get the mouse to find something different to watch after about twenty minutes.
On the plus side, I laughed when it was revealed in the first thirty seconds that dad and boykids were alive but mum was dead and gone. AN ABSENT MOTHER? In a Spielberg show? FATHER SON PATHOS? lolololol
|
|