Out of the fire, into the frying Pan: "San Andreas"

I saw it last night on a double bill with Mad Max - I left my brain at the door and it was a diverting-enough couple of hours. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

 

The industry scuttlebutt in 1982 was that Universal was unhappy that Spielberg was involved with both E.T. and Poltergeist in the same summer, and the latter was for a different studio (MGM). Spielberg calmed them down by saying, "oh, I'm only going to produce this one -- Tobe Hooper will direct it." But many reports began to circulate that Hooper was a director in name only, and that Spielberg was the one pulling the strings.

I got to work with one of the head ILM VFX people from Poltergeist in the 2000s. I asked him, "so, did Tobe Hooper direct the movie or did Spielberg?" He sighed and said, "Spielberg was there every single day on the set. He rehearsed the actors, told the DP what he wanted from the lighting, conferred with the camera operator on the position, and figured out the blocking of each shot with the storyboards. Once he was finished, he'd turn to Hooper and nod, and then Hooper would say, 'roll camera!' and 'action!'"

He also said Hooper never came up to San Rafael to review the VFX along with Spielberg. So that was what I was told as to who was involved with Poltergeist.

 

I saw it last night and feeakin loved it

 

>>> click

You're welcome....

 

thanks for sharing!!

 

I know you meant to say "1980s computer effects", it was funny to see 1908s computer effects, this is what came to mind when I saw that, mind you this computer is even older than 1908:

 

Fun fact - computers go back much farther than that, back to the 17th century. Of course back then (and into the 20th century) computers were people. The word computer was used for a person performing mathematical calculations.

 

I wonder why people say a remake of Poltergeist is bad. The original was a horrendous film to begin with! Surely you can't get any worse than the original!

 

The DVD should arrive today

 

for what it was we enjoyed it...it's much better when one doesn't look to find fault with the movies they are watching...relax your mind and float downstream...

 

why? because it's cool to hate and trash a new movie whether it's a remake or not...most trash a movie before it's even made! or ones they have yet to see! hysterical...hey! let me on the bandwagon!

 

what!? no Bluray!

 

Were there a lot of medium and close up shots? It could be due to the fact that it's also available in 3D. I vaguely remember reading a few years ago that if there are too many long/wide shots in a 3D movie then it makes people feel sick, or it looks fake, or something like that. I don't feel like Googling it right now.

 

The 1982 original has 88% on RottenTomatoes, got very positive reviews, and made $121M (on a $10M budget), which is extremely good. I think you're in the minority in considering it to be a bad film.

The remake and the sequels... those I agree were not good.

 

Original Poltergeist was a perfectly imagined ghost story. Introduced classic horror elements into suburbia in the U.S. Funny and clever and at time profound. I think it's one of THE great horror films. Possibly top five, definitely top ten.

 

Back to the discussion about San Andreas....

I just watched it last night, and I thought it was a pretty standard Hollywood disaster flick.... all the usual clichés were present and accounted for. Not the best disaster film I've ever seen, but certainly far from being the worst.

A few things that stick out in my mind:

1) The opening scene where the girl's car tumbles down the cliff contained some of the worst-looking CGI that I've seen in recent years... specifically, the physics & movement of the car itself as it fell down the cliff looked totally unrealistic and was very badly animated. The CGI in the rest of the movie looked fine and was on par with what I'd expect from a big-budget Hollywood production in 2015, which makes it all the more baffling why the opening scene was so poorly done.

2) During the rescue of the girl on the side of the cliff, they make a huge deal of the fact that the helicopter is dangerously low on fuel... at one point the co-pilot even mentions that it has gone "into the red" and they're going to crash in mere moments. But once the girl has been rescued, everyone seems to suddenly forget about the fuel problem and are completely oblivious to the fact that they're still in serious trouble. The helicopter is still working fine and the scene just ends happily without addressing the issue any further.

3) The ending of the film was kind of a let-down... there wasn't really any climax to speak of. I know it's common for disaster movies to end with a series of scenes of perilous situations and daring rescues, and not to have a standard "climax" in the usual sense... but the final scenes should still stand out and be exciting. The final scenes of this movie weren't any more exciting than what came before... if anything, some of the previous scenes were more exciting than the ending.

4) Alexandra Daddario is an absolute *knockout*!! I had previously seen her in Texas Chainsaw 3D, but that's the extent of my familiarity with her. I really need to watch a few episodes of True Detective and be further exposed to her, uhh, assets.

 

I saw it last year in the theatre and enjoyed it.

 

If you watch TD, you will 100% exposed to Alex DD's assets. Just saying.

She's about the only reason to watch San Andreas. Like someone else mentioned above, it had me pining for Earthquake '74.

 

indeed

 

Found the clip of that scene online.
Two words.... Sweet Jesus

How appropriate that her last name contains a set of DD's....

 

Alexandra Daddario is gonna be in the new Baywatch movie!!!!!