I actually didn't think this was Seth's best work. I'm a big fan of his "Closer Look" segment, but I don't find him that funny with his one-liners.

Also, genuine question: why did Oprah win the Cecil B. de Mille Award? I mean, she's undoubtedly a successful person, but her filmography is pretty mediocre.

The last few winners were:
Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, Jodie Foster, Woody Allen, George Clooney, Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep.

There's no way you could argue that Oprah belongs in that company. (not really sure why Clooney is there either, TBH, also get lost Woody Allen, you creepy old fuck).

But still, upvote for the sentiment if not the execution.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I wonder if there's a correlation to age. Some of the notable action movie failures are ones made by directors that have also made notable good action movies; George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, The Wachowskis. The difference is the not-so-good movies were made when the directors were older.

A couple of my favourite authors also went this way. Their earliest books were great reads, their later offerings less so, as if they lost touch with what made their earlier works so good.

I guess sometimes wisdom does not always mean better.

Your video, Steven Spielberg vs Alfred Hitchcock. Epic Rap Battles, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Per Wikipedia: "Poltergeist initially received an R rating[15] from the MPAA. As the PG-13 rating did not come into effect until 1984, which would have been an appropriate rating at the time, Steven Spielberg and Tobe Hooper disagreed with the 'R' rating and managed to have the film changed to a 'PG' rating on appeal."

That is almost as bad as Steven Spielberg doing an American version of the Japanese film "Like Father, Like Son."

Full body cringing revulsion at the thought of both of these.

Just as Spielberg and Lucas were predicting.

"In 2002, Steven Spielberg finally finished college after a 33-year hiatus. He turned in Schindler's List for his student film requirement."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-brake/movie-trivia_b_3799281.html

Violence, death and danger raises the stakes of a narrative and triggers the production of adrenaline in the minds of the viewer. Our ancient ancestors got the same rush by outrunning a grizzly bear. Luckily, we can tap into this brain narcotic with much less risk.

There are films that do seem to pointlessly revel in gore and suffering, most notably Saw 1-26, but Quentin certainly isn't guilty of this kind of torture porn. Steven Spielberg killed at least as many Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark as Quentin killed racist confederates in Django, but Spielberg never gets criticized for it. The violence in both films serve the dual purposes of making the bad guys really bad, and making the catharsis of revenge in the end really good.

Violence in media is a reflection of violence in culture, not the other way around. Quentin didn't dream up slavery, lynchings, torture, mutilation and the other types of racial violence in his film. That stuff really happened.

And to Spike Lee: Django blowing racists to hell with TNT is how Tarrentino deals with race in cinema. Mookie tossing a garbage can through the front window of Sal's pizzaria is how you deal with race in cinema. Both are great films with the same perspective on race done in completely different styles. Get over yourself. If you want to criticize a film about race directed by a white guy, do 'Crash', that movie was a patronizing pile of shit.

From the score onwards this looks to be pure melodrama. I wouldn't expect much less with Steven Spielberg.

>> ^kir_mokum:

pros: daniel day lewis
cons: americana skeet fest, spielberg.
guess i wont be seeing this one.


To be fair, that's one heck of a pro. DDL is one of the greats (I don't know who DDD is but I'm sure he's great too).

Your video, "Lincoln" Trailer - Steven Spielberg & Daniel Day-Lewis, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Very good. Would have been better without the Steven Spielberg soundtrack loops.

yeah your to far gone no saving you If I was you I would end your life now , you are forbidden from enjoying something I hate so much!

The screen size thing dosen't matter if you have a 1080p tv or hd projector or evan better 2 hd projectors stitched and you sit relatively close to it then the screen size difference interms of what is in your fov will not be that grate ( obviously it depends on what focal range your eyes are comfortable with but sitting withint he range of 2-5m from 70" screen should be fine ) The effective resolution of 35mm film is about 4000x2000 , but now allot of cinimas use digital projectors and many of them project at 2048×1080 , so all in all a $1000 Tv or $1500 projector will likely do a fairly comparable job. the massive advantage with home system is you can set it up to your taste not some arbatrery pre-decided spec some company has come up with and for sound especially everyone has different taste.

also I don't see the piont of a shaired exsperance with people you dont know and will never talk to . I understand watching a film with some friends or a group and then talking about it but with total randoms that you will never interact with dosent make sense. ( it might make sense when you have a cinema full of black people (or one of those special film nights some cinemas do) and they all screem and shout at the film getting involved more and what have you as that is truly an original exsperance (not one I enjoy but I can certainly see how that could be enjoyable and different from watching a film at home).

The only cinema exsperance I ever had that was better than what could be achieved at home was watching a documentary on a proper spec I max screen ( before they did the bullshit I-max licensing) and at a theem park in France called http://uk.futuroscope.com/ where they had a screen below the floor as well as a normal imax one.

Id probably enjoy going to an american outdoors cinima where you park a car , or evan one where its just in a park or something ,



I think what makes me ill with bog standard cinema is its so procedural with you just been a chiken stuffed in a pen and fed bullshit useless advertising and constantly told ITS THE BEST EXSPERANCE YOU CAN HAVE ON THE BIG SCREEN when infact for allot of people its probably not.

Finaly to finish of my waist of time writing !

I concide that if the cinima is


1) empty or near empty to the piont i cannot notice other people or the only people in it are people i know and are firends with
2) set up correctly sound focus screen everything
3) has comfortable seats not sticky shit on the floor smells nice
4) no quing up no bullshit adverts and no trailers that ruin the plot of new films ( or its possible to miss them all some how)

Then it is better than what you will get at home and will be far more enjoyable in general , having said that that scenario has happened to me 3 times in 14 years and from going to over 30 different cinemas in 2 different countries.





>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^westy:
Although I enjoyed your discussion home cinimas are infinetly better than going out to watch a film evan if you only have a 42" 2 year old LCD tv and bog standard surround sound system.
maybe you have super awesome cinemas where you are but in the uk there is always something objectively wrong and not in a "charming way" ( listed above in my other comment )

I can see where you're coming from, westy. There are so many things that can (and do) go wrong with the theatrical experience: inconsiderate jerks, bad projection, bad sound, uncomfortable seats, lighting issues, too many commercials, and so on, and so on. But I just love going to the movies.
You ask why you'd want to watch a movie in a room full of people you don't know. But I think that sitting in a darkened room full of strangers and having a shared experience is one of the things that makes going to the movies so special.
There's also the fact that, no matter how big the screen is in your home theatre, it's still a mere fraction of the size of a decently-sized theatre. The sound will never be as good at home (assuming the theatre is doing what they're supposed to be doing). The image will never look as good as well-projected film. And again, watching alone at home can never compare to being in a room full of people who are laughing when they're supposed to, or who are all thrilled, or scared, or moved at the same time you are.
But then I've been going to the movies on a regular basis since I was old enough to sit in the seats, so maybe, like you said, I can never be truly objective about it. I don't care how good home theatre technology gets, I'll be going to the movies until the day I die.