On 2008-03-26 15:36:21 -0700, Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
said:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> Gene Ward Smith <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:Xns9A6D759EF1F51genewardsmithsbcglob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>>> They did EVERYTHING for the other aspects of SF. Note that
Spielberg's
>>>> SF films came AFTER Star Wars.
>>>
>>> They did not. Close Encounters and Star Wars were both big summer
films in
>>> 1977.
>
> I'll give you that. CE3K, though, is like 2001; for those who like it,
> a lovely film; for those that don't, a snoozer. And not influential in
> any significant sense.
It was a huge hit. I think it did come out after STAR WARS, but not
much after -- it had to have been in the works well before STAR WARS
came out.
>> And Spielberg went on to release film after film of science
>> fiction, making him overall much more im****tant than Lucas for the
genre as a
>> whole, not just space opera.
>
> No.
>
> Star Wars' influence was what made most of Spielberg's following
> successes (and perhaps not-so-successes) possible.
I don't think I'd agree with that. STAR WARS's success opened up a
world of special-effects adventure and spectacle in the film industry,
but CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and JAWS made Spielberg a Name, and CE3K is more
of a parent to E.T. than STAR WARS is. STAR WARS is big adventure;
E.T. and CE3K are stories of ordinary people transformed by contact
with the unknown.
STAR WARS helped get RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK made, and RAIDERS helped
Spielberg, but it's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have gotten to do
E.T. anyway, on the basis of JAWS and CE3K. And E.T. was the moment
when he carte blanche to do virtually whatever he wanted.
His SF thereafter largely falls into the pattern of CE3K and E.T., of
strangeness illuminating humanity, than it does the gosh-wow SFX fun of
STAR WARS.
> I think when you compare that to George Lucas' oeuvre, it's clear
> Spielberg has been more im****tant.
>
> Nope.
I think it's arguable either way. They've both got Indiana Jones on
their side, which feels more Lucas-y than Spielberg-y. But if you
stack up CE3K, E.T., POLTERGEIST, GREMLINS, GOONIES, JURASSIC PARK and
such up against the STAR WARS canon, LABYRINTH, HOWARD THE DUCK, WILLOW
and that crowd, you get Lucas having a very strong but concentrated
effect (Star Wars and Indy) while Spielberg has more varied successes.
Spielberg has been hugely influential as a director and a producer;
Lucas is hugely influential as a producer. Lucas may have spawned more
attempts to grab his particular brass ring (Disney's THE BLACK HOLE,
for instance, is an attempt to do Lucas), while Spielberg, along with
Kennedy/Marshall, spawned Chris Columbus, Robert Zemeckis and others.
Ultimately, it's gonna depend on what you value. Lucas has had two
shatteringly-successful franchises that have made him enormously
wealthy and which have spawned lots of imitations and helped blow the
doors open for SFX spectacle in Holloywood. Spielberg has has
astoundingly successful movies that mave made him wealthy, spawned lots
of spiritual and creative follow-ons and also helped blow the doors
open for SFX spectacle of a different flavor in Hollywood.
Making it harder to judge is that one of Lucas's big franchises is also
Spielberg's.
Lucas's punch is more concentrated -- most of what he's worked on is
Star Wars or Indy connected. Spielberg is more varied -- the average
peak of Lucas's successes is probably higher, but outside of those two
franchises there isn't that much of note, while Spielberg has many more
successes, though they probably don't hit the same peaks on average.
Spielberg is pretty clearly the more influential filmmaker in general,
but when you limit it to SF, Lucas has at least a competing claim to
the crown.
kdb
|
