Why do people take Spielberg's comments on the direction of entertainment seriously?

[01189998819991197253]

Why do we take him seriously in this one particular field? He's been successful in that particular field for longer than you've been alive at virtually every level of that field. You need to bring something more than hemming and hawing, and clearly you're not interested in anything like work.

Here's the thing though, look at his Filmography, and you'll see that for the most part, anything he hasn't been at the helm of(whether it be script or director) has been some of the more critically panned stuff in the industry going back to the 70's.

Yes, he's been successful and knows how to make some damn good movies, but that doesn't mean he knows much outside of what he himself creates.

How generous of you to grant that he can, "Make some damn good movies..." I do at least appreciate that where Zontar was going on for paragraphs, you're keeping your attempt to nitpick someone's expertise in their expert field, from your position of anonymous laity to something mercifully brief. I'm not sure what you think you're claiming after all. Most people are not able to become even tangentially involved in a successful film project, never mind dozens over decades. That he didn't personally write and direct them all doesn't in any way detract from his expertise, including that expertise as an investor.

In fact, when you get right down to it, the core of your argument argues against itself. Which is a ridiculous thing, even on the internet.

You might want to re-read what I've put here. I said that with a handful of exceptions, anything he hasn't been directly involved in at the top has not gone over well. I'm saying he picks the wrong horse. He plants the tree at the wrong angle that can't be seen from the window. Projects he doesn't personally oversee do not come out well in the wash. Is this driving the point home?

It's not that he's not an expert in his field. I'm saying that picking projects that largely just have his name attached isn't one of the fields his expertise is in. I'm saying that he can personally make a movie work, but he doesn't predict trends all that well if he's not at the head of the project.

Also, as an aside, what exactly is it you're arguing? That if you aren't in the biz don't try to criticize? Seems awfully...short-sighted. I'm just a nameless mook on the internet, you're right. Doesn't mean that my opinion on what is and isn't a decent movie is completely invalidated.

I'll repeat myself for a third time sure. If you're not an authority in a given field, and you bring nothing else to the table, you have no standing when you randomly nitpick an existing authority in that field.

Didn't realize this was rocket science.

But this is Spielberg, a man who's famous for a Shark movie that was a hit because of the moody suspense built by never seeing it - which would make him an auteur director if that was his intention, but nope, fake shark kept breaking so this was plan B.

Most iconic Indian Jones scene? The dude with the fancy sword dance and Indy just straight up shoots the guy, intention? Nope, was supposed to be a prolonged dramatic fight sequence, Harrison Ford had a cold and couldn't be arsed to do the stunt work.

The guy's not a genius who understands his craft, he got lucky, so producers gave him money, so he made more films, got a name, and then banks on that alone so can run out any old crap he likes and will fill a cinema, but genius he is not, so you'd take his word on how things are going with as much stock, as, well, mine..

"He got lucky"

And then he got money. Just like M. Night Shymalan. Only , you know, we laugh at the latter. Can you please try harder?

 

[Redryhno]

Why do we take him seriously in this one particular field? He's been successful in that particular field for longer than you've been alive at virtually every level of that field. You need to bring something more than hemming and hawing, and clearly you're not interested in anything like work.

Here's the thing though, look at his Filmography, and you'll see that for the most part, anything he hasn't been at the helm of(whether it be script or director) has been some of the more critically panned stuff in the industry going back to the 70's.

Yes, he's been successful and knows how to make some damn good movies, but that doesn't mean he knows much outside of what he himself creates.

How generous of you to grant that he can, "Make some damn good movies..." I do at least appreciate that where Zontar was going on for paragraphs, you're keeping your attempt to nitpick someone's expertise in their expert field, from your position of anonymous laity to something mercifully brief. I'm not sure what you think you're claiming after all. Most people are not able to become even tangentially involved in a successful film project, never mind dozens over decades. That he didn't personally write and direct them all doesn't in any way detract from his expertise, including that expertise as an investor.

In fact, when you get right down to it, the core of your argument argues against itself. Which is a ridiculous thing, even on the internet.

You might want to re-read what I've put here. I said that with a handful of exceptions, anything he hasn't been directly involved in at the top has not gone over well. I'm saying he picks the wrong horse. He plants the tree at the wrong angle that can't be seen from the window. Projects he doesn't personally oversee do not come out well in the wash. Is this driving the point home?

It's not that he's not an expert in his field. I'm saying that picking projects that largely just have his name attached isn't one of the fields his expertise is in. I'm saying that he can personally make a movie work, but he doesn't predict trends all that well if he's not at the head of the project.

Also, as an aside, what exactly is it you're arguing? That if you aren't in the biz don't try to criticize? Seems awfully...short-sighted. I'm just a nameless mook on the internet, you're right. Doesn't mean that my opinion on what is and isn't a decent movie is completely invalidated.

I'll repeat myself for a third time sure. If you're not an authority in a given field, and you bring nothing else to the table, you have no standing when you randomly nitpick an existing authority in that field.

Didn't realize this was rocket science.

Very well, as I am an employed chef, from both certificate and working under other chefs with a variety of food specialties, I declare that any food you call bad is actually just because you don't know what you're tasting and therefore you have no right to criticize. Unless you're also in the same profession, in which case we just caused a paradox. You see how absolutely short-sighted that kind of declaration is?

All I said was that if he wasn't in charge, movies with his name involved have not been received well. Which is why I don't think his talk of trends is worth much. You got anything to add beyond bringing up a one-trick pony filmmaker as validation?

 

[01189998819991197253]

Why do we take him seriously in this one particular field? He's been successful in that particular field for longer than you've been alive at virtually every level of that field. You need to bring something more than hemming and hawing, and clearly you're not interested in anything like work.

Here's the thing though, look at his Filmography, and you'll see that for the most part, anything he hasn't been at the helm of(whether it be script or director) has been some of the more critically panned stuff in the industry going back to the 70's.

Yes, he's been successful and knows how to make some damn good movies, but that doesn't mean he knows much outside of what he himself creates.

How generous of you to grant that he can, "Make some damn good movies..." I do at least appreciate that where Zontar was going on for paragraphs, you're keeping your attempt to nitpick someone's expertise in their expert field, from your position of anonymous laity to something mercifully brief. I'm not sure what you think you're claiming after all. Most people are not able to become even tangentially involved in a successful film project, never mind dozens over decades. That he didn't personally write and direct them all doesn't in any way detract from his expertise, including that expertise as an investor.

In fact, when you get right down to it, the core of your argument argues against itself. Which is a ridiculous thing, even on the internet.

You might want to re-read what I've put here. I said that with a handful of exceptions, anything he hasn't been directly involved in at the top has not gone over well. I'm saying he picks the wrong horse. He plants the tree at the wrong angle that can't be seen from the window. Projects he doesn't personally oversee do not come out well in the wash. Is this driving the point home?

It's not that he's not an expert in his field. I'm saying that picking projects that largely just have his name attached isn't one of the fields his expertise is in. I'm saying that he can personally make a movie work, but he doesn't predict trends all that well if he's not at the head of the project.

Also, as an aside, what exactly is it you're arguing? That if you aren't in the biz don't try to criticize? Seems awfully...short-sighted. I'm just a nameless mook on the internet, you're right. Doesn't mean that my opinion on what is and isn't a decent movie is completely invalidated.

I'll repeat myself for a third time sure. If you're not an authority in a given field, and you bring nothing else to the table, you have no standing when you randomly nitpick an existing authority in that field.

Didn't realize this was rocket science.

Very well, as I am an employed chef, from both certificate and working under other chefs with a variety of food specialties, I declare that any food you call bad is actually just because you don't know what you're tasting and therefore you have no right to criticize.

Since you're a chef and not an English major, I can forgive you confusing your expertise I guess. You're not an expert in taste, you're a food preparation expert and kitchen leader. If you were a respected authority on food, not just the preparation of food you might at least be comparing the right things.[footnote]You're also presumably not the Spielberg of your field either, or you wouldn't have the time to post so much. "Chef" is hardly a rigorous standard, maybe you're a trained chef at a Red Lobster.[/footnote] You'd still be wrong though, because taste is TASTE... it's the ultimate in subjectivity. Success in the movie industry, making $3.6 billion, and the number of people who've watched his movies is not subjective.

You're all mixed up, comparing apples and oranges. I'm not interested in your taste, in food or movies. Presumably you're not interested in mine either. We were discussing, not whether or not people think Spielberg's movies are good, or fun, just why people listen to him.

It's the success. The decades of succeeding at the top of his field.

Next.

 

[Redryhno]

Why do we take him seriously in this one particular field? He's been successful in that particular field for longer than you've been alive at virtually every level of that field. You need to bring something more than hemming and hawing, and clearly you're not interested in anything like work.

Here's the thing though, look at his Filmography, and you'll see that for the most part, anything he hasn't been at the helm of(whether it be script or director) has been some of the more critically panned stuff in the industry going back to the 70's.

Yes, he's been successful and knows how to make some damn good movies, but that doesn't mean he knows much outside of what he himself creates.

How generous of you to grant that he can, "Make some damn good movies..." I do at least appreciate that where Zontar was going on for paragraphs, you're keeping your attempt to nitpick someone's expertise in their expert field, from your position of anonymous laity to something mercifully brief. I'm not sure what you think you're claiming after all. Most people are not able to become even tangentially involved in a successful film project, never mind dozens over decades. That he didn't personally write and direct them all doesn't in any way detract from his expertise, including that expertise as an investor.

In fact, when you get right down to it, the core of your argument argues against itself. Which is a ridiculous thing, even on the internet.

You might want to re-read what I've put here. I said that with a handful of exceptions, anything he hasn't been directly involved in at the top has not gone over well. I'm saying he picks the wrong horse. He plants the tree at the wrong angle that can't be seen from the window. Projects he doesn't personally oversee do not come out well in the wash. Is this driving the point home?

It's not that he's not an expert in his field. I'm saying that picking projects that largely just have his name attached isn't one of the fields his expertise is in. I'm saying that he can personally make a movie work, but he doesn't predict trends all that well if he's not at the head of the project.

Also, as an aside, what exactly is it you're arguing? That if you aren't in the biz don't try to criticize? Seems awfully...short-sighted. I'm just a nameless mook on the internet, you're right. Doesn't mean that my opinion on what is and isn't a decent movie is completely invalidated.

I'll repeat myself for a third time sure. If you're not an authority in a given field, and you bring nothing else to the table, you have no standing when you randomly nitpick an existing authority in that field.

Didn't realize this was rocket science.

Very well, as I am an employed chef, from both certificate and working under other chefs with a variety of food specialties, I declare that any food you call bad is actually just because you don't know what you're tasting and therefore you have no right to criticize.

Since you're a chef and not an English major, I can forgive you confusing your expertise I guess. You're not an expert in taste, you're a food preparation expert and kitchen leader. If you were a respected authority on food, not just the preparation of food you might at least be comparing the right things.[footnote]You're also presumably not the Spielberg of your field either, or you wouldn't have the time to post so much. "Chef" is hardly a rigorous standard, maybe you're a trained chef at a Red Lobster.[/footnote] You'd still be wrong though, because taste is TASTE... it's the ultimate in subjectivity. Success in the movie industry, making $3.6 billion, and the number of people who've watched his movies is not subjective.

You're all mixed up, comparing apples and oranges. I'm not interested in your taste, in food or movies. Presumably you're not interested in mine either. We were discussing, not whether or not people think Spielberg's movies are good, or fun, just why people listen to him.

It's the success. The decades of succeeding at the top of his field.

Next.

If that's really the game you wanna play. I'm gonna correct you a bit first. I am not a kitchen leader expert or a preparation expert(anyone that tells you that they are is really damn new to the job or has a bigger head than neck that can hold it up). And not being an expert in flavor? I will admit that I don't like sweets, so I'm not the best judge of cupcakes, doesn't mean that I'm not damn good at making a good spiced cabbage soup that a picky kid will eat because I've spent years learning how flavors work together since my own childhood. Most of the time I can tell you alot of what's in any particular dish you put in front of me beyond the obvious. To say that who I work with don't know how flavors work honestly tells more about you than it does about me. Also, who's nitpicking now buddy?

But onto the important stuff. I'm going to reiterate again, because you continually jump past that and talk about his history of filmmaking. Look at his Filmography. Look at what he's been either director or writer of and see how successful they've been. Then look at everything else. The majority of the things he's backed(but not led) have not done all that great. That is where I'm basing my "listen with a truckload of salt at the ready" opinion in regards to his opinions on trends.

You are basing yours in years of success and money earned. If that's what we're gonna go by, then Uwe Bole is actually who we should be listening to. His terrible films make him quite a bit of money and he continues to make them and profit. JJ Abrams has made nearly as much money and garnerned nearly as much acclaim with two Star Trek films than the previous films did in total. EA is the biggest game publisher at the moment and has a long history of critically acclaimed games. We should all listen to them, as they're obviously experts and giants in their fields as well.

Spielburg has a long history, yes. He has many good films, yes. He is a good writer and director, yes. But he is not all that great at knowing when a movie is going to be successful when he's not steering it around. That is literally all I've been saying. And you've continually gone back to "well he's successful, therefore he knows what he's doing", which is not something I'm disputing, I'm disputing that that means he's right when he has an equally long history of not predicting whether or not a movie will be good when he's not directly involved.

That is literally all I've been saying. Never that his opinion was invalid, just that it wasn't anywhere near as "expert" and "educated" as people say. Just like Schafer may be decent at writing and game design, but he's shit at money management and likes parties more than he likes keeping people employed. Just like Lucas had a brilliant idea of bringing the idea of Future Fantasy to the mainstream with Star Wars, but is not the best writer or director in the world. Just like Gary Gygax built upon Tolkein's works and folklore, but needed others to refine the formula to create a better product because Chainmail was fucking awful if you didn't know how everything worked together and it carried over to his first D&D builds.

 

[Vausch]

Because it's happened before with almost every major trend.

Buddy Cop movies, Dinosaur movies, horror movies of various themes (one gets popular, many knockoffs will be made), gangster movies, all have gone through a trend for a few years before becoming scarce because people stopped going to them.

Superheroes have a bit of an edge in my opinion because they're not all as formulaic, funnily enough. If the writer is good and the studio willing to take risks, the superheroes are allowed to lose and the variety in their abilities allows for more wide reaching stories and conflicts.

Marvel is lucky that all of their movies have been enjoyable. DC hasn't had that luck with films but their TV series are at least good. Well, Flash is.

 

[FalloutJack]

Not that I've even HEARD any of Spielberg's comments, but something about money and clought winning over common sense springs to mind.