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

Nothing, except a poster wanting to change the subject when people point out that he is full of shit.

 

outofplace is incapable of reading comprehension.

You on the other hand, I've never detected such a shortcoming.

Anyway, there was discussion between two other posters as to whether it could have possibly been true, the story about Spielberg running out of budget on JP.

I merely mentioned that he hadn't had an original screen concept be a cash cow in 11 years.

Innocuous remark in response to that dialogue.

 

I'm still failing to see how an "original screen concept" has anything to do with whether a movie is a cash cow or whether he was/is a bankable director. The bottom line is he made shitloads of money for his distributors during that 11-year span with both Indy movies, "The Goonies" (which he wrote and produced, but did not direct) and "The Color Purple."

So no matter how you try to parse it -- including somehow spinning it so that a sequel with an original plot is less of an "original concept" than adapting a book -- you're simply wrong. He had huge hits.

And I think you're lying through your teeth when you try to say that your initial comment about "original material" applies to sequels and not adaptations.

How in the world is "taking something from a book ... much more original?" How??? That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

I'll give you that it can be difficult because you have to try to live up to the expectations of an audience that already knows the plot, but there is no way it is "much more original." That is quite possibly the dumbest thing you've ever said.

Cast and crew have absolutely nothing to do with "original concepts."

Hell, even if it did, the only actors to appear in the Indy sequels were Harrison Ford, John Rhys-Davies (Sallah) and Denholm Elliot (Brody). Ford is the only one to appear in all three. Directors routinely use the same crews regardless of whether it's a sequel, so that point is bunk.

You were wrong with your original statement and in the ensuing posts you kept trying to amend it to somehow sound correct, yet you keep failing. Why not just admit that Spielberg was plenty bankable as a director and therefore was not likely on a short leash with the studios? It's really the only way for you to come out of this conversation without continuing to sound foolish.

 

I chose my dog in this fight the moment someone hinted that "Hook" sucked.

"Hook" did not suck one little bit.

 

Anybody want to take bets on that happening? Simon made one of his ridiculous statements and now he is going to fight to the death and pull every trick he can think of to avoid admitting it.

Go on, Simon. Tell us again about my reading skills. Or try to blow the comment off as unimportant even though you keep arguing the point.

Full. Of. Shit.

 

Again.... I'm not the one who said Goldblum was taking points because Spielberg was out of money on Jurassic Park.

Do you get this? In any way?

And, I'm sticking by the assertion doing an original movie from a book is much more difficult than a sequel in a franchise.

 

I never thought you said that. You stated that Spielberg hadn't had a hit from "original material" in the 11 years prior to JP and Schindler's List (neglecting, of course, that neither JP nor Schindler's List were "original material"). You made that statement to show that the Goldblum idea was at least plausible.

My point was that Spielberg had several hits in those 11 years that made him a bankable director who would not be on a short leash.

He had had several hits in the 11 years between E.T. and JP. You chose to somehow dismiss them by saying they aren't "original material," which I'm saying has nothing to do with whether they made a shitload of money (they did), nor whether Spielberg is a bankable director (he is/was).

You also tried to move the field goal posts of the argument by spinning your definition of "original material." I can respect it if you don't consider sequels are original material. I disagree, but I can see your point. But to say that a film adapted from a book is "much more original" (your words) than a sequel conceived solely for film is completely asinine. I think you know this and only made that argument because you got shown up on all your other points.

I've enjoyed this conversation, as infuriating as it might be, but I'm done with it. Anyone with half a brain and a third-grade reading level knows you haven't made any sense, much less many (if any) valid points.








And I still have no idea why you think "original material" means anything when it comes to box office success.




OK, now I'm done.

 

He had the two Indy sequels in those 11 years. That was it.

 

Every time I think I'm out, he pulls me back in! [/pacino]

Including rentals, "Hook" made $185 million on a $70 million budget and made $65 million in rentals. Though it was critically panned, it was a hit.

On a budget of $15 million, "The Color Purple" made $100 million at the box office and $50 million in rentals. It also earned 11 Oscar nominations. HIT.

On a budget of $28 million, "The Temple of Doom" made $175 million domestically at the box office and $109 million domestically in rentals (which is to say nothing of the other $211 million it made worldwide in rentals). HIT.

On a budget of $48 million, "The Last Crusade" made $200 million domestically at the box office and $115 million in rentals ($322 million worldwide). HIT.

So that's four bona fide hits and $838 million profit domestically. It was well over a billion in profit if you take worldwide figures into account.

Yeah, he really sucked during those 11 years and I'm sure the studios had him on a short leash. :

Are you done yet?

 

You are playing loose with figures.... Hook, for instance, had its budget, but also handed out 40 percent in points to Spielberg and the big leads. So, that was a little better than break even.

Obviously, I never said that the Indy sequels weren't major money makers.

To find a point of agreement with you, I don't think there is any way someone put a leash on the guy for Jurassic Park.

 

Ah, Used Cars. Whatever happened to Deborah Harmon anyway?

 

Translation: To back away from getting his ass handed to him, he's finding a point of agreement. Nicely done, bigpern.