Did Spielberg Direct Poltergeist?

Рет қаралды 22,594

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 175

@VectorSpector 6 жыл бұрын

The film is produced and written by Spielberg so it's not going to feel like a Hooper original. This was Hooper's first big studio gig and also the environment that he learned most of his special effects knowledge, so of course Hooper would work tightly with Spielberg to create his vision.

@davidbjacobs3598 3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. Half the "filmmaker tropes" that people point to in order to claim Spielberg was the true force are an element of the script, which he's credited with. Middle-class family? Check. Three children? Check. Living in a suburban neighborhood? Check. Experiencing something fantastical? Check. A few of his directing signatures are in there - as Udru points out, the "Spielberg face" and the trademark Oners. But like... other directors can imitate these things. Hooper was well aware that Spielberg wrote the script and had the benefit of his consultation. Of course he would want to pay homage to the writer and producer of the film by imitating his directing style. And yeah, Spielberg for sure gave advice on shots, but this isn't that uncommon for producers to do. As long as the director is okay with it, there is no problem there. It was still Hooper's call.

@BoxingFightsByGaryWilson 2 жыл бұрын

Oliver Robbins was interviewed regarding the controversy & he vehemently defended Hooper., he explained how people tend to be conspiracy theorists & want so much to believe Speilberg directed Poltergeist but alas, this was not the case & yes Hooper did work closely with Speilberg throughout, which explains why Poltergeist has a Speilberg feel to it but there was only one director throughout & his name was Tobe Hooper.

@thomasbirdeno 3 жыл бұрын

I agree with the sentiment that Spielberg's fingerprints were all over this yet much of Hooper's lighting techniques and rawness are everywhere. Team effort in my opinion. Makes sense that cast and crew are contrary to who did what.

@Sallytheflounder 6 ай бұрын

It seems to be a sharp divide between cast and crew. Cast always point out Hooper's presence and say Spielberg actually wasn't around that much at all. Crew and technical heads who probably salivated at the opportunity to defer to Spielberg remember all his involvement as line-producer and producer, and naturally wave off Hooper's role as director, which, by definition, is to work with actors and stage and rehearse scenes with cast and camera operator.

@georgealexander141 4 жыл бұрын

When I saw the movie back in the 80s, I thought it was a Spielberg movie. I guess I didn’t pay attention to the opening credits. But later on I found out it was Hooper. I was really shocked when I found this out.

@FrancisXLord 7 жыл бұрын

This whole controversy started when some magazine came to interview Spielberg on the set of Poltergeist and found him filming some complex scene in the street with a man on a bicycle and a group of kids with remote control cars. Hooper was in the back garden with Oliver Robbins, getting shots of him climbing a tree. They just went, 'Who the f*** is directing this movie?'

@bigideas3 7 жыл бұрын

Whatever happened, Spielberg sure does seem to block any special features on home video releases. Notice how the Poltergeist sequels got Shout Factory releases. Poltergeist, one of the biggest films of the 80's, only gets an extra of an unrelated ghost TV show or something. Very fishy. I have heard that Zelda Rubenstein said Steven was the only person who directed her.

@landpwner 6 жыл бұрын

She stated Spielberg "was directing" the six days she was there but also states Hooper was there. She has put forward her personal perception of things, that Spielberg was the dominant hand, but also has stated that on-set choices were "a split decision," with Hooper setting things up and Spielberg coming in to approve them, perhaps making suggestions.

@Tisply25 6 жыл бұрын

I heard that Spielberg also acted as a second unit director on Poltergeist. I believe there is an interview with Tobe Hooper who confirms this.

@landpwner 6 жыл бұрын

Spielberg did do uncredited 2nd Unit work, the most publicized scenes being the RC cars/neighbor on the bike scene and the Beast's attack on Marty in the children's bedroom, which was famously cut from the film. He probably did some other odds and ends, in the more impersonal scenes, as well as supervise much of the special effects shooting post-principal photography. 2nd Unit photography is quite common practice, especially when a game plan is made with the director. Allow me to state here, also, that I think the preponderance and ubiquity of Spielberg storyboards is largely overstated.

@matthewdelaney3466 3 жыл бұрын

Hey well theres this thing called history where in it Tobe directed Poltergeist. Might want to consult the history record, the cast and crew. I dont know if Im the first to tell you this, but feelings arent facts, fucko. Speilberg cowrote the script (with some input by tobe), did some storyboards (with tobe), and then hijacked the postproduction, without tobe.

@teachersdaejeon8739 7 жыл бұрын

This channel has plenty of promise. You clearly do a lot of research into your subjects. Just need to punch up your narration and editing. I can tell you're reading from a script instead of having a conversation with the viewer. And I thought the montage of "Steven!" at the end was funny, I just wish there were more moments like that in the video.Keep it up dude!

@doydivision3984 2 жыл бұрын

Damn. Finally someone talks about this. Growing up as a kid, I always thought it was strange that a Tobe Hooper film was so commercial and family friendly. Now I know why lol

@decalfacilitators463 Жыл бұрын

Spielberg wrote the film. Consider this Hooper’s sell-out film, like when indie directors go on to direct Disney or Marvel films. They met, came up with the story together, and agreed they wanted this to be a big revival of the ghost story for a mainstream general audience, a la The Haunting and The Uninvited. True, some of Spielberg’s bombastic aspects infected the film thoroughly, but thankfully there were better ingredients than when Spielberg adapted The Haunting in the 90’s.

@doydivision3984 Жыл бұрын

@@decalfacilitators463 True. Hooper had a great eye for the camera, and you definitely see it in Poltergeist. Some great cinematography.

@captainbeastazoid7084 Жыл бұрын

I've seen almost every Hooper AND Spielberg movie. And, although Poltergeist has a defiite Spielberg touch, I do feel like there is a certain vibe with the film, a certain approach to shots, and cinematography that does feel like some of Hooper's other films. He does have a certain style with his work and it's definitely there in Poltergeist. I don't understand why we can't just give credit to both men for their involvement in the film. It was directed by Hooper but Spielberg was very involved as producer. End of. It has the fingerprints of both men on it.

@ThirstyEye 7 жыл бұрын

It certainly seems to have been a collaboration, BUT with Spielberg having a very heavy hand on the production. Some nice moments early in the film, but not really my taste. I wonder what could have been if ol' Tobe had had more control?

@decalfacilitators463 Жыл бұрын

If Spielberg made it, the tennis balls would be whacking people in the head. It’s true, read his script!

@dobly58 2 жыл бұрын

If you look at Hooper's movies: Eaten Alive, Funhouse, Invaders from Mars and many more, Poltergeist is just so high gloss in comparison. I was never a fan of Hooper, TCM was his masterwork but failed to accomplish such originality since. His work is very lo-fi but he has cult status understandably. You can see ET in Poltergeist, made the same year and feels almost the same. The portrayal of family, suburbia, the themes of separation, the cinematography, the use of props, the horror, are all tropes of Spielberg. Every behind-the-scenes photos how Spielberg directing. For me it was always a Spielberg movie, perhaps why it love it so much.

@joblo7 Жыл бұрын

I agree with you. I think Poltergeist, without Spielberg around, would look and feel like Poltergeist 2. Poltergeist 2 was a professional, competently directed film, that did not feel Spielbergian, at all. That sequel, coincidently, was photographed by Hooper's cinematographer on The Funhouse, Andrew Laszlo. Spielberg was also, uncredited, second unit director on The Goonies but no one feels Spielberg directed that film. The Goonies feel like Richard Donner. While Back to the Future has a Spielbergian quality, no one questions that Robert Zemeckis, directed it. The same with Gremlins. Spielbergian quality but definitely a Joe Dante film. I've seen all of Hooper's films, before and after Poltergeist, and not one has the Spielbergian feel. Not even Invaders from Mars. I do believe that Tobe Hooper is a talented, professional director. I actually like Tobe. I enjoyed all three of his Cannon films, Chainsaw 2 was my favorite, of the three. I'm sure, on Poltergeist, he set up shots and said action and cut, a lot. I just don't feel he was the sole director of Poltergeist.

@decalfacilitators463 Жыл бұрын

@@joblo7 Poltergeist lacks many of Spielberg’s typical qualities while retaining many of Hooper’s. It lacks the flourishes and vividness, while it does have the attention to atmosphere and visuals separate from the drama and characters that defines Hooper’s work. I’ve read many reviews calling Poltergeist nonsensical and slow, without developed characters. Spielberg’s script may work prodigiously to counteract Hooper’s disinterest in the common commercial aspects of storytelling, but Hooper literally removes the young son’s entire arc. Hooper made a polished film three years prior on half the budget and schedule (SALEM’S LOT). Don’t believe the rumors.

@joblo7 Жыл бұрын

@@decalfacilitators463 I'm not saying Hooper doesn't have talent. I like some of his films and he came across as a decent guy, in interviews. I'm actually a director myself and there's certain things I pick up on. I've worked on Major studio productions and visited many major sets. The very first set i was ever on was The Untouchables. I also visited Amistad and spent hours, literally a few feet from Spielberg, as he directed Djimon Hounsou. This is not to brag but to say, I know my way around a set. I know the politics and drama of a set. I know first hand how studio films are made. I study directors style and technique. Because of this thread, I re watched Poltergeist and Tobe"s Cannon film's projects. I didn't get the Spielberg vibe from any of his films after Poltergeist. I doesn't have to be the whole film but scenes and sequences here and there. Poltergeist was very well put together and the quality of the direction was highly praised. Most directors, would have moments in their following films to flex and show they can easily evoke the Spielbergian vibe to prove they directed Poltergeist solo. I know Spielberg's camera work very well and how he works with actors. I believe it was ultimately a co director project. I Believe Tobe directed a lot of the film solo but certain key sequences were done by Spielberg. Either solo or heavily involved. And he was 100% in charge, during post production. I'm not listening to rumors but what my eyes tell me.

@decalfacilitators463 Жыл бұрын

@@joblo7 Well, again, very subjective. I think POLTERGEIST far more resembles the style of Hooper's work, in its reserve and elegance. Spielberg's camerawork is always highly energized. Hooper is much more connected to a rigorous rendering of spaces and repetitive landmarks, and this is a hallmark of POLTERGEIST. It is what he is fixated on, the way rooms repeat and interconnect. POLTERGEIST is nothing but all this. He also has far less interest in making emotions vivid, and much of the film renders emotions observable from a distance but never really enhanced. So where does that put us? It puts us in a position to give a benefit of a doubt to a director who put all his efforts being on set every day and doing the homework - perhaps with Spielberg - to best shoot a film. He was always there to modify. Spielberg was never solo. It does not track from actor statements. Hooper deserves this benefit of the doubt because the rumors were never legitimate. They were always trumped up for unambiguous marketing ends. The very first article about the directing uncertainty literally says: "If one is one the set, you cannot tell who is in charge"... which means Hooper was equally in play, and even a clear attempt to swing the situation toward Spielberg was outright manipulation. This obfuscation and bias is present through all the publicity. It is underhanded, thus the right thing to do now is not take it at face value. Especially when actors support Hooper. Finally, in regards to obfuscation, it would take heavier digging into articles to find out that Hooper was given the guild-required ten weeks to make a director's cut. He had first go at the material and post-production process. Why that fact seems to be buried is another reason it seems that the truth is really not on people's minds - even people on the set! - when they talk about this film.

@texanology 2 жыл бұрын

While Steven did write the script, it was Tobe who came up with the idea to do a film on ghosts originally, based on a poltergeist experience he had as a teenager days after his father died. When Spielberg first approached Hooper about a collaboration, his idea was to do a movie about extraterrestrials. Tobe wasn’t really interested in that topic, and suggested alternatively the idea to make it about ghosts. Hooper has always closely worked with his creative collaborators and screenwriters. Kim Henkel was there every day on Chain Saw (and even directed a scene). Larry Block was brought along with Hooper when shooting the Funhouse in Florida. The rumors surrounding who actually directed Poltergeist’s come from mainly a single reporter for the Los Angeles Times who was there on set and observed Spielberg helping out shooting second unit pickup.

@gabrielschulz302 7 жыл бұрын

Stevengeist

@thanachartmaneechote9517 5 жыл бұрын

LOL

@CrowaX 8 жыл бұрын

I found the conclusion a bit weird. The narrative is typical Spielberg-esque because Spielberg wrote the story. So it's a bit weird to use that as a part of the conclusion. And the part a about some shots of "famous Spielberg face" and one long take, how does that make it so "obvious" Spielberg directed it? I would like to see someone do a analysis on the typical Hooper direction style vs Spielberg's style. Such as how they like their actors to act, blocking the actors, building suspense and surprise, gore factor and so on. This video jumps a bit to conclusion, but I like the fact he included interviews from magazines, interviews by cast and crew, and so on. I like the research part, I just think analysis was a bit weak. But keep up the good work, pal. Your videos are very entertaining!

@karlkarlos3545 7 жыл бұрын

I've seen a good deal of Hooper movies and nothing looks even remotely like Poltergeist. You can't say the same about Spielberg's style though.

@landpwner 5 жыл бұрын

The film hardly looks or feels like E.T. or raiders of the Lost Ark either. Maybe a little like Close Encounters, but it looks a little like The Funhouse, too.

@karlkarlos3545 5 жыл бұрын

@@landpwner It absolutley looks like E.T. and even some scenes Raiders of the Lost Ark.

@MrBoggs 5 жыл бұрын

This page does some comparison. twitter.com/poltrgthts_imag

@mr.roberto1898 6 жыл бұрын

Did Howard hawks direct the thing(1951), next video essay?

@drudru1986 6 жыл бұрын

I'm actually thinking of doing that sometime in the future, but I've got a few videos lined up first.

@toddgrogg8005 4 ай бұрын

The way Mr Spielberg, is obsessed with having John Williams, doing music for his movies. Then if Steven, directed the movie then why did Jerry goldsmith, do the music score?? _ but not Mr Williams???.

@drudru1986 Ай бұрын

Because John Williams was busy scoring E.T., which was released one week after Poltergeist.

@BootlegShanty 6 жыл бұрын

Just found your channel man, AND I LOVE IT. Great info!

@Whisky_Tango_Foxtrot-jc5uq 3 жыл бұрын

Texas Chainsaw, Salem's Lot, Life force and Invaders from Mars, Tobe Hooper is not lacking as a director of horror/sci fi. His influence is all over Poltergeist aswell as Spielberg's. I'd say they basically both directed it. It was a collaboration for the most part. Or tug of war. Or Tobe just nodded and obeyed what Spielberg wanted as a producer with it being his Idea, creation. Basically what Kershner and Marquand did for Lucas on Star Wars.

@decalfacilitators463 3 жыл бұрын

It wasn’t just Spielberg’s creation. The very idea behind the film was Hooper’s, and Hooper helped create the general storyline with Spielberg. In line with this, there’s a lot of script to screen comparison that show Hooper was probably more disobedient than obedient. They probably worked it out in the end. Isn’t that what a regular producer-director relationship is? Spielberg is often characterized as a megalomaniac, but I think he knew this was a joint project and had to let go to the director. As he himself put it: “The turmoil of producing is wanting to do things your own way, but having to go through procedure. That is why I will never again not direct a film I wrote.”

@DarksaberForce 2 жыл бұрын

Irvin seemed to have more freedom with Empire compared to Richard with Jedi. I remember reading some crew stories that they thought George with the real director.

@thomasffrench3639 6 ай бұрын

@@DarksaberForce If he did it would be mediocre like Never Say Never Again.

@ThisDyingEarth 8 жыл бұрын

Thanks for making this video. Just been rewatching Poltergeist for the first time in years and had always assumed that it was directed by Spielberg. Noticed, for the fist time, that Hooper is listed as the director and couldn't believe it. So many Spielberg moments, and it feels like a Spielberg film so had to check Google to see if others had made the same assumption. Found your video as a result.

@decalfacilitators463 Жыл бұрын

Every actor you could ask says Hooper fully directed the film. Following that, the film’s script includes a lot more Spielberg-isms, like a quippy adolescent boy and slapstick with the neighbors. That is thoroughly elided, probably thanks to Hooper.

@DarksaberForce 2 жыл бұрын

IMO they were both directors in a way. Steven on the creative and special effects side and Tobe with the actors and day-to-day production.

@joeyvalenz2899 7 жыл бұрын

the film was directed by tobe Hooper

@ThirstyEye 7 жыл бұрын

If Tobe were *the* director, I probably would have liked it more. The movie really drags in the second half.

@karlkarlos3545 5 жыл бұрын

Well, not acording to cast and crew.

@landpwner 5 жыл бұрын

@@karlkarlos3545 Martin Casella, Oliver Robins, James Karen say it's Hooper's work on the screen. JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson are mum but never don't mention Tobe Hooper. Zelda Rubinstein has contradicted herself constantly. John Leonetti was a 26 year old gofer. Richard Edlund and Craig Reardon were off in their workshop or filming 2nd Unit most of the time. Rumors began on the very first days of shooting. This was an out-of-control gossip train before anyone had the right to have an opinion on it in the first place. People saw what they wanted to see and what they wanted to see was a chance to hero-worship Spielberg.

@quatz1981 4 жыл бұрын

@@landpwner Jerry Goldsmith stated in interviews that it was Spielberg who consulted with him on the score. I guess we will never truely know for sure but id like to think it was a co-directing effort from both directors.

@landpwner 4 жыл бұрын

@@quatz1981 That's well within the auspices of a producer. Goldsmith has no authority on who directed the film on the set. Directors throughout cinema history have relinquished a film before it was ultimately scored. This was the method of the old studio system, yet no one has questioned the directorial control of the many cases of this with the relish of the "Poltergeist" situation that only exists because of people's faith in Spielberg and lack of faith in Hooper. It's been stated numerous times, from Craig T. Nelson to Frank Marshall, that Hooper put together an edit of the film (Marshall even called it a director's cut), likely with a temp score attached to it. Re-scoring is another thing that happens numerous times with the impositions of a producer/studio. Again, what producers do to directors. As for co-directing, Spielberg was a collaborator, but Hooper was the one always present according to most performers and likely the one altering so much of Spielberg's script. As said, everything in the bounds of a strong, enthusiastic producer, but with an equally strong, disobedient director at work.

@quatz1981 4 жыл бұрын

Pretty much the whole film looks and feels like a Spielberg movie, the way its shot, edited and everything. Id say its more of a Spielberg film than Hooper. Makes you wonder why there are no special features on either the DVD or the Bluray, Spielberg never really talks about the film. I suspect its because he was not allowed to direct the movie because of E.T but pretty much did anyway and he doesn't want it biting him in the ass.

@decalfacilitators463 4 жыл бұрын

The way it's shot has a lot in common with Hooper's films and Spielberg does not have the patience or the eye to pull of some of Poltergeist's more languid and baroque moments. Tobe Hooper was fully on board for a Blu-Ray special edition almost a decade ago. He had nothing to hide. I doubt the reasons are the ones you suspect.

@quatz1981 4 жыл бұрын

@@decalfacilitators463 i have no doubt Hooper was on set setting up shots etc but its clear to me Spielberg had the final say. I believe what you say about Hooper being on board for a bluray special edition but its Spielberg i question and why he never talks about the film etc.

@decalfacilitators463 4 жыл бұрын

@@quatz1981 He doesn't talk about it because a) it is not his film, and that probably sticks in his craw a little and b) the scandal around it involved a DGA lawsuit and a falling out with Hooper due to the lawsuit (regarding Hooper being discredited in the film's press). There is way too much baggage around the film. The two filmmakers, I suspect, more often than not shared a vision (Spielberg approved Hooper's decisions, Hooper generally approved Spielberg's), but if there ever were a disagreement, I'm sure it depended on if it was a director's choice or a producer's choice. You might not be aware of this story: pbs.twimg.com/media/EPcap_jUwAEKiAa?format=jpg&name=small. I also think Spielberg's presence was highly overstated and he was not around Hooper's work as often as it was said. There are at least two stories of him just walking in at the end of the day to check how things were progressing.

@quatz1981 4 жыл бұрын

@@decalfacilitators463 Spielberg speaks of many films he produced and didn't direct. Back To The Future, Gremlins, The Goonies, the list goes on but i do get the lawsuit situation and why he may not speak about it for that reason. With regards to Spielberg's presence on set being overstated, im not so sure, there are many production stills of Spielberg on set directing the crew and the actors. Even the 1982 making of documentary linked here kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y3rSn3yEpJuXea8 shows Spielberg's involvement to a greater degree. There were definately two directors directing on this film but i just feel that the movie looks and plays more like a Spielberg film rather than a Hooper one but that is just my opinion and nothing more. I totally understand and respect anyone who thinks differently.

@decalfacilitators463 4 жыл бұрын

@@quatz1981 Directing is a very specific role, though, even though it does determine the entire rhythm, feel, and tone of a film. What a producer does, meanwhile, can be very nebulous (and perhaps powerful - if Spielberg wanted the steak to look a certain way, that's was in his prerogative to decide, so far as it didn't negate Hooper's own vision of things... I'm sure disagreements happened, such as this one described here: pbs.twimg.com/media/EeWio5XUEAUWU_7?format=jpg&name=medium). Spielberg had a vested interest in the project due to the fact he was both a fledgling producer and a writer (though again, with Hooper almost as a co-writer). The writing of the film was a very quick, dirty process that involved the input of both men. Rewriting did occur that was probably at the behest of Hooper. So from the beginning, the film was a product of an intense collaboration between them. This partnership was something Hooper did not antagonize, though, rather he nurtured it. It seems rational, then, that he allow Spielberg a place on the set as a constant collaborator to bounce ideas off of (writers do have this privilege sometimes, even though more often they don't - we can mention Spielberg's past films himself, such as having Lucas with him on the Indiana Jones sets and Zemeckis on 1941. And as a quote of Spielberg goes, paraphrased, about his investment: "If Tobe had said 'Get off the set,' I would've left. Instead, he'd laugh and I'd laugh" [and we'd get on with it]). One could find many pictures of Lucas on the Raiders of the Lost Ark set, but there was less inclination to oversell his role. But, as with that situation, the producer and director seemed to share a unified vision. In the end, though, it is a director's job to give the film its look and to guide the performances. If pictures can tell us anything at all, it is that Spielberg was interested in how the film turned out, but while not being in the role of the director. That Making Of is itself a lopsided thing, much of the footage of Spielberg being shot during the FX shooting up at ILM months after the film already wrapped. Look at any moment when the scenes are being shot before the camera, with actors being directed, you'll actually see Hooper there, not Spielberg. This is of course cut around such that Hooper gets none of the limelight, but Spielberg's presence in that featurette is all rather superficial. I do think the film feels more like a Hooper film - there is no way Spielberg would ever make a film as slow-paced and photographically sluggish as this film, featuring none of the intense character-identification techniques he usually deploys to spice up scenes. What we have here is a writer-producer who wanted a say on a director's film, which is all the evidence we have before us really shows (beyond actors, whom a director is supposed to be working with, all saying Hooper almost exclusively was directing, Craig T. Nelson also recollecting that he would say Spielberg was not around the work he was doing with Hooper at the very least half the time).

@kennedyviana6408 6 жыл бұрын

Even though Hooper was a director at the Poltergeist, Steven was the founder of it all. He got the idea of the story, developed the script and produced the entire film. We notice that all production and climate is very handy to Steven. Interestingly, E.T. and Poltergeist were filmed in the same location. Steven when he worked hard at that time to finish both projects.

@phil3001 5 жыл бұрын

I believe I also read in a magazine that the external shots from Poltergeist and E.T. were only a few houses apart.

@landpwner 5 жыл бұрын

E.T.'s exterior filming was in Tujunga and Northridge, CA. Poltergeist's was entirely in Simi Valley. They are within miles of each other, but that would be several+ miles.

@davnbull 6 жыл бұрын

The way the shots are setup feels a bit "Spontaneous Combustion-esq," but the narrative, heart within the story, and the financial aspects of the practical effects are reminiscent of Spielberg's touch.

@aaron2709 8 жыл бұрын

Hooper was 'assistant to the director.' And that's being generous.

@mariellalouise3163 6 жыл бұрын

+Aaron Go fuck yourself, this movie sucks. You don't know shit about it, all you know is the bulklkshit hearsay. Hooper directed it - and was then over-riden by Steven Spielberg.

@landpwner 6 жыл бұрын

Still made the movie he wanted to make. The number of times the film diverts from the script and storyboards, he must've been playing Master Spielberg like a fiddle.

@thomasffrench3639 4 ай бұрын

So you’re saying that Spielberg ripped off The Funhouse?

@harmanxx 8 жыл бұрын

This series is wonderfully well done.

@drudru1986 8 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much!

@CassandrashadowcassMorrison 5 жыл бұрын

No Hooper. One can easily recognize his over the top gross out style as seen in SALEM'S LOT and, more clearly, LIFE FORCE.

@MrCageCat 3 жыл бұрын

Yet there are also a LOT of scenes that feel like classic Spielberg of that time.

@waywardwatchdog1 3 жыл бұрын

Nah.

@IanSowers 3 жыл бұрын

Don't confuse a hands-on producer with a director. Hooper directed this, and he proved in other films that he was capable of this kind of visual storytelling. It's a shame that Spielberg muddied the waters with his comments at the time.

@taliamason7986 3 жыл бұрын

No hands on Producer has almost every shot of the film very clearly with their whole signature on it. This the exact same thing that happened with V For Vendetta under the exact same studio 15 years ago. Its credited as been directed by John McTeiran but anybody who has seen it knows it very clearly The Wachowski's who like Speilberg only got the Executive Producers credit.

@adamzanzie Жыл бұрын

@@taliamason7986I assume you mean James McTeigue? John McTiernan was not involved in the making of V for Vendetta lol

@decalfacilitators463 Жыл бұрын

@@taliamason7986 The film also has Hooper’s signature on every shot, which is a very rigorous attention to space and architecture, creating a claustrophobic world around the characters. Just because a director has a prompt which includes big, tentpole set-pieces, doesn’t mean they didn’t bring to the film their stamp. It’s just more hidden. Thankfully Hooper has a distinct style, so we can see past the BS attempts to attribute the film by parties in 1982 to his “branded” producer.

@TheTrashStash 3 жыл бұрын

so steven spielberg basically told tobe hooper what to do? like micro-managing? or did he actually show up and direct the film while hooper was at home?

@landpwner 3 жыл бұрын

No. There’s far more evidence that Hooper wouldn’t simply do what was in Spielberg’s script, and Hooper was known to reinterpret films as he made them. It seems that Hooper’s desire to be capricious is what made Spielberg’s totally regulation presence as a producer such a big issue. Don’t believe the pure speculation, we have multiple main actors saying Hooper was very much handling the film individually.

@damienlovestheoutdoorsandr6110 8 жыл бұрын

Tobe hooper was the fall guy. Because as it said. Two separate studios won't let you direct two films at the same time. Still Spielberg got his name on this in the credits. There is only Spielberg who will put actors through mud rain etc (swimming pool scene)

@decalfacilitators463 Жыл бұрын

Are you kidding? Hooper threw his actress into a room full of chicken feathers.

@kenyetamoses2797 Жыл бұрын

JOEY VALENZ, ARE E.T. AND POLTERGEIST HOUSE ARE ON THE SAME STREET, ROXBURY LANE?

@kenyetamoses2797 8 ай бұрын

IS POLTERGEIST (1982) THE ORIGINAL'S ORIGINAL TITLE CALLED IT'S NIGHTTIME? IS IT'S NIGHTTIME POLTERGEIST (1982) THE ORIGINAL WORKING ORIGINAL TITLE?

@monicamcclaskey7921 4 жыл бұрын

Give Hooper the credit. Speiberg don't even care about this movie anyway.

@plasticweapon 3 жыл бұрын

they co directed it.

@JW-do2wc 5 жыл бұрын

What percentage was Hooper able to put into the film under his creativity before Spielberg did the rest of the filming.

@landpwner 5 жыл бұрын

100%. It was a collaborative process between the two men from the first moment pen was put to paper, up until the final shooting day, for which Hooper was still fully instated. There is no concrete evidence Spielberg ever shot anything without Hooper's express approval or knowledge. He was an unofficial 2nd Unit director for whatever was needed, which may have included some unscripted scenes that Hooper, in his constant changes to the script, likely provoked in order to cohere tonally to what he was shooting, namely the outdoor moving scene (which, in the script, was a jovial dinner scene), which may have fallen under 2nd Unit duties, being essentially a Simi Valley pick-up shoot. Another scene that was completely rewritten was the end scene at the motel, which, whether or not shot by Hooper, was much more in keeping with his wryly satirical tone that he established throughout the shoot as well as Hooper's penchant for carefully precise crane shots. Long story short, Spielberg wrote the script with specific input from Hooper, Hooper then likely shot virtually the entire film with input from Spielberg, but with Hooper establishing his general tone and feel, thus his "creativity" is always present, no matter who shot what (and again, there is no evidence Spielberg shot anything by himself outside of a scene that didn't even make it into the movie, and various 2nd Unit work, like the RC car scene and *maybe* the moving scene previously mentioned).

@JW-do2wc 5 жыл бұрын

@@landpwner So Spielberg was there to observe Hooper while Hooper whenever he wanted to would ask Spielberg for advice. He must've had a lot of faith in the guy despite him directing a 70s slasher film. I commemorate him for that.

@landpwner 5 жыл бұрын

@@JW-do2wc Yes, exactly! Spielberg and Hooper were the two closest partners on the film, and that is something conspiracy theorists tend to overlook. The faith Spielberg put in this eccentric filmmaker was what made the film go forward, Hooper calling it "one of the best producer-director relationships" he ever had, and it was special, unique, and shows how much Spielberg loves movie-making in general.

@biffmercury 3 жыл бұрын

@@landpwner I agree. I think Spielberg admired that Hooper could direct a film like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, and Spielberg knew he probably didn’t have the chops for something like that and I think he hired Hooper to hopefully give the film some edginess, while Hooper was probably trying to show he could work in a structured, major motion picture studio environment, and I think Hooper knew being associated with the hottest director in town would only help his career. I think POLTERGEIST probably got him the LIFEFORCE and INVADERS FROM MARS gigs, so he would have been right. I think Hooper was also probably trying to show he was no prima donna and maybe kept his mouth shut and let Spielberg do his thing, knowing that no matter what happened, Hooper would still get the directing credit. I think his main goal was to stay in the saddle, finish the film, regardless of who actually called the shots.

@landpwner 3 жыл бұрын

@@biffmercury I think it's an unconventional arrangement in general, and a big-fish/little-fish one (as opposed to the big-fish-big-fish relationship of Lucas and Spielberg, or Donner and Spielberg) not accepted by a very judgmental and rule-oriented movie industry. The problem is, though, we'll never know what Spielberg's "thing" is and what Hooper may have let Spielberg "do," as anyone who claims to have seen this occur cannot give any specifics or extricate it from a general sense of bias against Hooper. By all means Hooper collaborated with his writer and producer, and you're absolutely right, he did so in order to complete the film, but how much Spielberg abused this cooperation and how much Hooper sacrificed to finish the film up through his final edit is totally free of corroborating evidence. The best evidence we have is how much the film tonally diverges from Spielberg's own shooting script, and the three rewrites that occurred mid shooting.

@kenyetamoses2797 2 ай бұрын

IS POLTERGEIST 1982 FORMER NAME IS IT'S NIGHTTIME?

@quarantinebored1427 Жыл бұрын

This story frustrates me. It’s like why even hire Tobe Hooper. Spielberg hired hooper Because of his work on Texas chainsaw massacre. Spielberg could’ve directed both this and ET at the same time. He did it on films like Jurassic park/schindler's list and Munich/war of words and the list goes on and on.

@Sallytheflounder 6 ай бұрын

Hooper came up with the very concept of "Poltergeist." Hooper wasn't just gonna give it up just because Spielberg decided to help rewrite the film with him (Hooper). Spielberg could've if he wanted. He simply didn't want to (it was Hooper's project)

@quarantinebored1427 6 ай бұрын

@@Sallytheflounder it was a hopper film but you watch how the scenes were set up and shot, you can tell it was a Steven Spielberg movie. There’s a couple of BTS pictures of the film and it shows speilberg directing the actors. I think that when hooper directed Texas chainsaw 2, he channeled all of his anger from the making of poltergeist and put it to his film.

@Sallytheflounder 6 ай бұрын

@@quarantinebored1427 Actually, if you rewatch the Making Of featurette, any and all instances of directing the actors features Hooper. Any picture you see of Spielberg with actors takes place during the first week of elaborate and complicated location shooting involving the stunts and hydraulic effects. This was all before the first day of sound stage shooting in which an incident occurred where Beatrice Straight stood up to Spielberg and told him he was contradicting Hooper too much, and that she would only listen to Hooper. The staging and shooting of scenes actually displays a lot of Hooper's habits - most particularly, his sense of improvisation, and scenes often veer greatly from how Spielberg wrote them. Hooper's blocking and staging can be just as complex as Spielberg's, but in more subtle ways. Spielberg's camera would be zipping and zooming around all corners of the set, or he would be filling it up with montage and close-ups. On the contrary, Poltergeist exhibits a lot of oddball restraint and a unique attention to place and atmosphere. That is all Hooper.

@JM06261996 2 жыл бұрын

It's funny now that this was actually confirmed, Hooper only took the directing "credit" so Spielberg could secretly direct it, as he was contractually obligated to ONLY work on ET at the time.

@andersenkalle 2 жыл бұрын

That certainly isn’t confirmed. Most of the actors don’t even agree with that.

@JM06261996 2 жыл бұрын

@@andersenkalle google it my dude. It was actually recently confirmed, and the second part of your comment is also not true because Rubenstein said the 5 days or so she was shooting, Spielberg seemed to be calling the shots.

@andersenkalle 2 жыл бұрын

@@JM06261996 It seems confirmed that Spielberg had the most power on set, and he used that power. But it certainly isn’t a confirmed fact that Tobe Hooper took the job to cover up for Spielberg. Actors like James Karen, Craig T. Nelson and Jobeth Williams all said Hooper directed them. They also point out that Spielberg did. And some people claim Spielberg directed the whole thing, which isn’t even possible. Spielberg was in Hawaii for 3 days during production. Who directed those 3 days? I would guess the guy who was the hired director, Tobe Hooper. Now, don’t get me wrong, i’m not saying Spielberg didn’t direct, he clearly did. He was the writer, producer and one of the most powerful people in Hollywood. But to say Hooper wasn’t directing goes against what a bunch of actors claimed.

@decalfacilitators463 Жыл бұрын

@@JM06261996 Yeah, Rubinstein, when pushed about her comments, admitted the most confident she can be is that decisions were “split decisons.” She also says Hooper “set up every shot,” but decides to favor the times Spielberg “adjusted things.” In any case, two other actors state Spielberg actually wasn’t on set as much as the rumors claim, and there is an untold story about Hooper needing his producer to approve of the many times Hooper was unhappy with the script and wanted to change ideas constantly.

@Sallytheflounder 6 ай бұрын

@@andersenkalle Martin Casella: "By the end, Spielberg just wasn't around anymore, he was too busy with E.T." Oliver Robins: "Hooper was the only one who directed me." Craig T. Nelson: "It was really great. Spielberg wasn't around the set all that much because he was prepping E.T. And then there was Tobe Hooper, who was wonderful to work with."

@neoaureus 3 жыл бұрын

hahaha... and theres this " Tobe ! Tobe ! TObeeee !"

@kenyetamoses2797 Жыл бұрын

JOEY VALENZ, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF E.T. AND POLTERGEIST ARE TWINS?

@kenyetamoses2797 Жыл бұрын

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF E.T. AND POLTERGEIST TWINS?

@kenyetamoses2797 Жыл бұрын

OR WAS IT THAT TOBE HOOPER WHO DIRECTED POLTERGEIST WHILE SPIELBERG WAS TOO BUSY PREPPING E.T., AND IS E.T. AND POLTERGEIST TWINS?

@Dielawn69 3 жыл бұрын

It's definitely a mixture of both. Spielberg clearly had a hand on helping direct. Just because Hooper was credited as the single director doesn't make it true like some people are claiming lol.

@landpwner 3 жыл бұрын

Then we need to give the same scrutiny and hatchet job to a number of other filmmakers and their films that were powerful collaborations: The Goonies, Alita, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Terminator: Dark Fate, every Marvel movie. Just because Hooper liked to work off his writers to think up new scenarios (and there is enough improv in this film’s transformation from script to screen to make this a clear result of Hooper’s individual agency), then let’s not pretend that he wasn’t totally thrown under the bus unfairly by a lot of made-up speculation.

@landpwner 3 жыл бұрын

If we’re going to say “he helped,” then we need to know how and not just in ways completely within the boundaries of a producer.

@joblo7 Жыл бұрын

Exactly. In the music world, a lot of people get songwriting credits on songs they didn't write. This is usually done for royalties. Sometimes, the actual songwriter gets no credit, at all.

@johnbleakley4125 8 ай бұрын

Now, let's go get your daughter! 😀

@morlockmeat 3 жыл бұрын

Always thought it was Spielberg's movie through and through. Hooper was just the beard, since Spielberg couldn't legally be "director". The movie looked, felt, smelled and tasted like a Spielberg film from start to finish, and didn't have a trace of Hooper in it, knowing their styles. It was textbook Spielberg.

@TheTrashStash 3 жыл бұрын

why couldn't spielberg legally direct it?

@morlockmeat 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheTrashStash - From what I understand, he was under another contract and wasn't allowed to direct the movie outright. I think Toby Hooper was his beard for Poltergeist.

@TheTrashStash 3 жыл бұрын

@@morlockmeat ahh, i see! it definitely seems more like a spielberg project than a tobe hooper one

@morlockmeat 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheTrashStash - It sure does. It reeks of Spielberg.

@decalfacilitators463 3 жыл бұрын

@@morlockmeat Spielberg wrote it. But you’d be wrong in assuming that Hooper didn’t influence it in pivotal ways, from conceptually to visually to story wise. The original concept of the film was Hooper’s and he essentially developed the entire film with Spielberg. “Poltergeist” wouldn’t be “Poltergeist” without either of them. Hooper directed the film, though, and we should be glad Spielberg didn’t get to just churn out the film he wrote without Hooper’s different vision: pbs.twimg.com/media/ExCLaK-U8AA2C3y?format=jpg&name=small pbs.twimg.com/media/Et-CnORU0AE4MA3?format=jpg&name=900x900 pbs.twimg.com/media/EyOr8oaVcAAti-r?format=jpg&name=large pbs.twimg.com/media/EPcap_jUwAEKiAa?format=jpg&name=small