Happy happy fun time. On this installment of The Audio Edition we talk about the Borat riots (bonus marks if you know what that means), the sad passing of Pat Morita, the new War of the Worlds DVD release and some special features we DON’T want to see. I also go off on an angry rant about Steven Spielberg’s failure to put a simple Director’s Commentary on his DVDs (including War of the Worlds). We also touch a little on the new online clip of Narnia. All this and a few things more.
You can download this installment of The Audio Edition here
To subscribe to the podcast of The Audio Edition on iTunes copy this link and then paste it into iTunes-Advanced-Subscribe to Podcast.
SHOW NOTES: ** This is important. The Audio Edition is meant to be conversational… and it’s your turn to be involved in that conversation. Use the comments section of The Audio Editions to post YOUR show notes. Thoughts you had about the topics… interesting links to things related to the topics. Share your thoughts and links with the rest of us to keep the conversation going. The “show notes” are now yours to write!**
The kid going off to fight WAS dumb.
The kid surviving was just plain horrible writing because ultimately this PERSONAL take on the invasion had ZERO personal consequence.
“Oh hey look, the aliens are dead, we all survived to become better people, isn’t that dandy.” NO IT’S NOT!!!
A movie with balls would’ve killed off the son, thus giving the movie a more sombre ending that it deserved and would’ve involved some direct consequence for Tom Cruise’s character, the dysfunctional father who never really got to know the real person his son was. By killing off the son you provide loss and sacrifice on a PERSONAL level, which is the perspective the whole movie hinged on and ultimately didn’t provide.
All other issues with WOTW didn’t bug me. That one did because it sticks out like a sore thumb. An overly saccarine ending to a story that had no business having an ending like that after the direction they took with it.
you are way off base campea!
your argument about the kid going off to fight does not hold water:
no one ever says he was the only one to survie.
and cruise and dakota were holed up in that basement for weeks.
also, if the boy was hooked up with the army, it would make sense they could get around faster.
as for the war machines being underground, that was in the tv series that was a follow up to the first movie that was made.
i however, cannot argue with your observation that dakota fanning screams to much, i fucking hate that goofy bitch.
and personally,i could nto care less if there is a director commentary, different strokes i suppose.
I agree with most of Stuart and Goon’s comments. But, i see where you’re coming from, John. You think Spielberg is being a big baby for refusing to do a commentary. I have a problem with your argument though. You complain that hollywood has a lack of commitment to quality, but if you noticed, nowadays, most dvds generally have at least 1 commentary and a few featurettes. It’s just Spielberg and a few directors who don’t like doing those tracks. So don’t worry John, there’s plenty of dvds with director’s commentaries. If you complained about the quality of commentary tracks and featurettes, that’s something i can side with you on.
And, as for dvd prices, don’t buy dvd’s new. Go for used! Check Amazon Marketplace, or half.com. the big problem is to avoid the bootlegs and imports.
Spielberg thinks a commentary lessens the film viewing experience. In that case, adding a commentary subtracts value instead of adding it. Steven’s trying to protect you, John!
I think Stuart pretty much smoked it with this debate.
a few things to add/speculate:
1) i have so many freaking dvds that i want to watch again, tv shows to get through, and unwatched special features i may never see, that I doesnt really bother me if X director doesnt do a commentary track.
2) when it comes to Spielberg specifically: on the A.I. DVD Spielberg did a lot of interviews and that was good enough for me. I actually find Steven a bit annoying (not as much as Oliver Stone’s pretentious goonery on the “Natural Born Killers’ track, but annoying), and dont think i could sit through a commentary from him
3) did it occur to anyone maybe Steven tried to do a commentary track before and it sucked, and he’s just making excuses?
4) i’ve only heard a handful of good commentary tracks I could sit through beginning to end with, ever – and they were rarely from the ‘masters’. Sorry Scorsese, but I couldnt make it through any of yours. Sorry Ebert, you are interesting, but on Citizen Kane/Dark City, I could only take so much. Its weird ones for bad/misunderstood/cult/comedies, like Tom Green on “Freddy Got Fingered”, the mockery track on “Showgirls”, Will Ferrell on “Anchorman”, Bruce Campbell on “Bubba Ho Tep” you should go for.
There’s one commentary track I’ve been meaning to listen to – the one by Rusesabagina aka ‘the real life guy’ for “Hotel Rwanda”. If every biopic or historical film had a track with a historian or real person who is part of the story, that would be awesome.
I always get lost after reading a comment from Darren. *winks*
Sit down and grab your hot chocolate, here we go:
1) Pat Morita’s passing. First, his role as Mr. Myagi was great. I liked the sequel better than the first film. Everyone did. But with all due respect, “nobody” forgot who else was nominated beside him at the Oscars. “Nobody” forgot the late Dr. Hang S. Ngor who won. “The Killing Fields” was (and still is) an outstanding film. Now, the better question: if we can remember John Malchovich for “Places In The Heart” and the other actors nominated, why when Morita passes, does the light bulb click on and he is rerembered for being in the same group?
2) Why no Spielberg commentary…I understand where you are going with this, John. I think also, you said ‘David’ because of another director who doesn’t do commentaries- David Lynch. Lynch, in fact, takes one of his films…no commentary…NO CHAPTER STOPS…
you know the film.
Besides Lynch and Spielberg, there are a few other directors who do not do commentaries, although I figure if David Cronenberg and James Cameron can back down off a high horse and do them …well, anyway, here’s a partial list to date:
*Walter Hill.
(#1 reason I didn’t trade in my old ‘Warriors’ DVD for new SE; I’d also like to see a SE of ‘Streets Of Fire’ and ‘Long Riders’ but that’s just me-note” Hill has not done commentaries on any of the Alien films either, although he is one of the Brandywine team)
*Larwence Kasdan.
There was that SE edition of Silverado, but despite a nice deck of cards, he gives no commentaries. The only one he has ever done – was for a group commentary on a film he wrote but did not direct: ‘Star Wars V: Empire Strikes Back’
*Brian DePalma.
*With one exception (group AC for Res Dogs), Quentin Tarintino.
Now, some directors don’t do commentaries for various reasons. On another film/little time, and yes, I think there should have been one on ‘Batman Begins’…but if there is no time, why can’t the FX crew do it (such as on Jurassic Park 3, which wasn’t directed by Spielberg) or the producers? Somebody?
But there’s another reason: some audio commentaries SUCK. Granted, not everyone is John Carpenter. or Oliver Stone (where you actually might learn shit) But you sure as hell don’t want to hear Rob Cohen on ‘Fast and The Furious’, or another Kevin Smith…and there was this one film last year, a nifty thriller called Cellular, and in the AC, the producers had a running gag where they would call up actors, the director, the writer, editor, DOP, etc. on thier cell phones! A wicked idea, but the gag runs out of gas, as in the end, there’s really nothing to say.
Some directors, such as Sam Raimi…do commentaries because the studio wants them. They won’t do commentaries alone:
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd/features/story/0,1259,—23459,00.html
3) I had the same problems with War, but I liked Tim Robbins cameo. Maverick kills off Merlin! Good stuff. However, I…well, call me crazy – I hate to say it, but ‘War” pales compared to “ID4”. As for Fanning- this is helmed by Spielberg. In Spielberg’s films, little girls (and boys) are either annoying, wise beyond thier years or both. (See “Jurassic Park” and “Hook”).
Yes, Cruise’s Oprah antics did distract a bit from the movie for some folks. Not me. But Spielberg’s done far better. I was disappointed for other reasons.
By the way, the evil million year old alien tyrant “Xenu” has brainwashed the masses also known as’Thetans’, and through the Hubbard ways, one can be cleared and remember thier past reincarnate lives. In recent years, the ‘religion’ has gone out of its way to be “user friendly” and have since downplayed Hubbard’s orgins of Scientology. While not a scientologist myself, I do agree with the overuse of medications for problems that don’t exist.
-Sealer out.
I’m with Doug too (scarily enough).
I have read the article where Spielberg says that he doesn’t like disseminating his own movies in a commentary-style and would rather do traditional interviews, but also, as Doug has mentioned, because he doesn’t view the finished product of his films as some technical achievement who’s production should be essayed into some talk-along. I know when I write one of my reviews, or create some music or design a web-site, I hate having to go back and explain it or try and justify the processes I used to get to a certain point or style, it just makes me uncomfortable.
If Monet or Van Gogh refused to give a lecture or a preface giving insight and technical facts about the processes they took to create their paintings would you demand art galleries start reducing their admission fees?
Some directors, mainly ones from a strictly more TECHNICAL background I can understand why they love to give commentaries. Someone like Ridley Scott lives for the processes and the deconstructions and love to talk about it as much as possible which means they are in a position to provide a great commentary track.
Conversely a lot of commentaries are from directors who just love the sound of their own voice and treat their movie with a level of pretention that hurts.
Others would rather you watched the movie as a movie, as Doug put it for want of a better phrase; a piece of art, or entertainment in it’s give form and it’s given form only in and of itself – he doesn’t want to sit there with you and pick it apart and take you out of the scene; you can get your stories about the behind the scenes hows and whats from the documentaries and extras. And lets face it, there aren’t many Spielberg DVDs that require double-dip editions, most are pretty comprehensive in that respect. And that in itself is pretty damn rare these days.
By all means I think DVD prices are outrageous and John’s rather militant viewpoint may be valid up to a point, but he seems to be letting it blindside him to alternative, valid viewpoints on the subject. :)
A commentary to me doesn’t represent “value” if the director going in to do the commentary isn’t comfortable doing it in the first place, because ultimately that discomfort is going to be reflected in the end product. Then all you’re gonna end up doing is bitching about the lacklustre commentary track the director gave the DVD.
Maybe Spielberg knows we will buy all his DVD’s AGAIN if (or when) he decides to include a commentary…can you say double dip.
Besides it seems most commentaries are basically recycled information that you can get on the other extras on the DVD.
I think I have to agree with Dougie on your Director’s Commentary debate; Spielberg probably feels that the magic of his final cinematic product would be degraded by him narrating the film. He probably feels, wrongly on occassion, that his film is of great enough value to the viewer for him not to add the commentary.
Haven’t listened yet, but I was wondering why anyone would spend $20 on the “War of the Worlds” DVD anyway?
-Drewbacca
http://www.moviepatron.com