From: v075q5fr@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott J Gorcey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Jurassix Park <spoilers>
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:16:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Dec14.234518.42050@datamark.co.nz>, thomas@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle) writes...
>In article <Bz8F8L.Dnr@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> vaughanj@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Jake Vaughan) writes:
> 
>>As I have been reading the net I have seen a lot of negative opinion
>>towards Steven Spielberg.  People have been saying that he might not
>>do justice to Jurrasic Park.  I really can't say that I understand
>>this opinion.  Did everyoneforget about "Jaws" or "Poltergeist"?  If

     JAWS is one of my favorite all time moviews - a classic thriller,
     a film which continues to define the action/suspense categories
     today, and has yet to be surpassed for effectiveness.  But
     Spielberg did not direct POLTRGEIST; his company, Ambllin,
     produced it; but then again, Amblin have produced such high
     cinmatic achievements as GOONIES, BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED,
     and several other flops (they had quite the string of shite
     going there for a while, didn't they?).  
     I think the negative consensus on JURASSIC PARK has to do with
     several things: reports that Spielberg did major rewriting of
     Chricton's script, as he had done to James V Hart's wonderful
     HOOK script.  Looking at what happened to the one (what a piece
     of crap), you can't help but feel ominous forebodings about
     the other.  Also, apart from 1989's final INDIANA JONES picture,
     when is the last time Spielberg made a worthwhile movie?  
     EMPIRE OF THE SUN?  That's quite a while ago.  Before that?
     It seems his reputation was forged between JAWS and THE COLOR
     PURPLE and he has done nothing in the time since to prove
     that he's worth such repute.  I still have high hopes for
     JURASSIC PARK, as I loved the novel and thought it felt
     like a good Spielberg movie; but not a good Spielberg movie
     as in HOOK; a good Spielberg movie as in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS.

>>people are worried about Spielberg not being able to do a great
>>Sci-fi movie then they should rent "Close Encounters of the Third
>>Kind."

     Yeah, but the question remains...

  I saw someone mention this earlier.  As far as his ability to
>>do a serious film, I think that "The Color Purple" pretty much wraps
>>that argument up. 

     ...what have you done for me lately?

 And I think someone on the net put it most
>>eloquently, "...if you didn't like the Indiana Jones movies, then you
>>must have a gland missing some- where..."

     Who else decided long ago that Spielberg must either a) write
     the script beginning to end all by himself or b) divorce himself
     from the writing process altogether and concentrate on bringing
     someone else's script to life, instead of refashioning that
     script to his own ends...?

><spoilers>
> 
>Well, I think it would be hard not to do justice to 'Jurassic Park'.
> 
>Anyone else think the book was hardly worth wasting the time it took
>to read it?

    Obviously, I didn't.

>On the other hand, that sort of weak plot and wooden characterisation
>might work quite well in a film.

     It's not Joyce, but you know, people seem to like it.

>I just hope we don't have to keep watching the mathematician keep on
>leaping off his death bed to give another 10 minute speech about the
>latest pseudo-science wanking. (Last year it was virtual reality, this
>year it's chaos theory.)

     ...but, JURASSIC PARK is FROM last year...  what does this
     mean???  Oh no...  your theory shot to hell...

>    Thomas Beagle | thomas@datamark.co.nz           Work: 64 4 233 8186
>Datamark Intl Ltd | thomas@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz     Home: 64 4 499 3832
> Technical Writer | Yes, I do have long ears, a black nose, and a tail.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies