Steven Spielberg 15 years ago... It was a very good year

He hadn't directed a hit from original material in 11 years as 1993 dawned.

 

Not sure what original material has to do with it, but I'm pretty sure "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" and "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" both qualify as hits. They were both "original material."

"The Color Purple" obviously wasn't "original material," but it earned 11 Oscar nominations. "Empire of the Sun" was nominated for six Oscars.

He also wrote and produced "The Goonies."

Not sure what you were getting at with that post, but it's not as if Spielberg hadn't done jack shit since "E.T." when "Jurassic Park" came out. He was still making some outstanding films.

(PS -- thanks, IMDB.)

 

I'm not going to consider sequels original material.

 

How convenient.

 

I'll send you a dictionary if you give me an address.

 

Point is, Simon, the guy was still pretty much Hollywood gold at that time, your acceptance of sequels notwithstanding.

 

Ding, ding, ding!

I'm also not sure why Simon would hook onto his "original material" premise to infer Spielberg didn't have any hits in 11 years before 1993 when neither "Jurassic Park" -- novel originally written by Michael Crichton -- nor "Schindler's List" -- novel originally written by Thomas Keneally -- were original material.

I'll send you a dictionary if you give me an address.
[/quote]

My dictionary's definition of original (or at least the salient definition) is: never having occurred or existed before; fresh; new. The fact is, the entire plots of "Temple of Doom" and "Last Crusade" never existed before George Lucas put pen to paper and Spielberg started his cameras rolling, the same way "Empire Strikes Back" or "Return of the Jedi" didn't. They were original material, even if they shared characters with a previous film. They were certainly more original than "Jurassic Park" or "Schindler's List."

But please, by all means, send me your dictionary.

Mail it to:
Bigpern23
49 Suck It Lane
Spielberg Had Hits, CA
91608

 

My dictionary's definition of original (or at least the salient definition) is: never having occurred or existed before; fresh; new. The fact is, the entire plots of "Temple of Doom" and "Last Crusade" never existed before George Lucas put pen to paper and Spielberg started his cameras rolling, the same way "Empire Strikes Back" or "Return of the Jedi" didn't. They were original material, even if they shared characters with a previous film. They were certainly more original than "Jurassic Park" or "Schindler's List."

But please, by all means, send me your dictionary.

Mail it to:
Bigpern23
49 Suck It Lane
Spielberg Had Hits, CA
91608



[/quote]imply

And a sequel is simply nowhere close to the same thing as adapting material onto the screen for the first time.

chrissakes

 

imply

And a sequel is simply nowhere close to the same thing as adapting material onto the screen for the first time.

chrissakes
[/quote]

Simon, I think part of your post got deleted.

From what I read there, it sounds as if you are saying that adapting material from a book or other sources qualifies as "original material," whereas writing an entirely new sequel from scratch does not.

This seems like an odd stance. It also does not address the fact that Spielberg directed "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" which combined for 17 Oscar nominations during that 11-year span. Hell, aside from critical acclaim, "The Color Purple" made $100 million at the box office and $50 million in rentals.

I don't think I'm understanding your position here.

 

Then I can't help you.

A sequel involves the same crew, cast, characters, uses numerous templates.

Taking something from a book, as a director, is much more original, and difficult.

 

I still don't understand what the hell your original/unoriginal tangent has to do with the thread.