My new favorite movie analysis channel! Just outstanding research and presentation. You had me at all the Alien movies, now I'm watching everything. Thank you and please keep up the amazing work!
Glad you're loving it. Next up will be Total Recall (1990) then Airplane, then John Carpenter's Halloween before we get back to Predator 2 and Beneath the Planet of the Apes with some possible changes.
I actually appreciate your bit about The Dark Knight Rises. Anytime I encounter someone who dislikes the film, it's always because of that or other superficial "plot hole" reasons, and they never point out any actual filmmaking flaws.
This was not a movie when I was a kid, but an event. It was like a documentary about UFO's. When the black guy at air traffic control asked, "Do you want to report a UFO ?" I was hooked. It was one of the best scenes in the film, to me. Then to have flight 19 mentioned was genius and that is an unbelievable story in its own right that to this day has never been resolved. So many people including me believe this movie was almost like a nudge from the government to slowly introduce and normalize ET's in order to get to where we are today with acceptance.
In mid 1970s England, Wham-O was the maker of the 1st Frisbee we’d ever seen when being advertised in some comic. I spent a period of time after this first sighting believing these new things were actually called Wham-O-Frisbees 😃👍
@RepresentThis awe man that's spectawesome!!.. it was really cool hearing this vids prologue and how you had/have a very keen interest in the UFO/UAP/WTF(lol) subject man... I was born in 87 and since age 8 or so I ALWAYS caught EVERY UFO/paranormal doc and show on scifi channel... anyways man, I know that you and myself love film obviously but I would love to see you make some Paranormal material.. anyways just shooting the shite man.. keep up great work 👍!!!
I have to say that I never realised how great an allegory this movie is for chasing your dream. Your videos are fantastic sir. I love your insight. Thank you.
Excellent analysis and presentation. Many, many things I didn't know about CE3K. I wish I still had my soundtrack album, novel and "fotonovel" (the days long before the internets were dreamed about). You made such a good point about the use of the night skies in the film, they are beautiful to watch. Thank you so much, as always Represent This, for making the best series of videos on this landmark film.
I don't think I could part with my soundtrack as I think this one was in my top 20 of all time. It's one of those to take with you if you are stranded on an island. The question is how you could play the darned thing.
@@RepresentThis I recall the gatefold design of the album cover and the amazing image contained when opened up. Would have been round about 1977 (of course). And the fotonovel, it was amazing at the time. Thank you for the clear passion you have about CE3K, especially now the film is approaching 50 years old. Your video inspired me to find this: watch?v=vzZQBVJgbag
What I recall when I saw Close Encounters is that Roy is the quintessential unsuitable male character . The film makes Roy the protagonist because he is not really suited to be a husband and father. However in his job, he seems quite suited. He also likes his hobbies. Therefore It was no surprise that Roy goes with the aliens at the end.
I've said this before, it's both to share with you and other commenters. I love movies and movie-making. Whenever I could I got extended cuts, commentaries and special features. Your documentaries are full of information but also have heart and personality. New movies rarely have this and don't have the love put into them. The subtle characterisations you mentioned make movies rewatchable. Although not this movie, someone else I follow recently covered Dante's Peak and Volcano, more association than comparison. Out of the 2, I've only seen Volcano and even though it doesn't have a totally positive rating, I like it. It was fun and energetic and didn't take itself too seriously. What make me think of it is you saying about Richard Dreyfus' character being a big kid, because that's kind of me too. Where Volcano comes is the the daughter of Tommy Lee Jones' character who, by going by the actress was 15 years old. In so many movies where the young characters need to be brave, they are played by young-looking 19-year-olds and already have this bravery. But in that movie, she was a 15-year-old who was emotionally 13, that's how I saw her and when she needed to be brave it was so much more meaningful.
I totally agree that everyone should THINK as they watch movies. Plot holes are fun to find but not everything is a legit plothole. Thanks again for doing what you do. I look forward to the day your channel has 100,000+ subscribers.
I think we are a long way from 100,000. I wish we were there so I could put all my time into the channel. However, I'm like Alan Grant when it comes to computers and tech so I really don't know how to promote the channel nor would I have time to do so as I spend about 60 hours a week making vids, have a job and I'm a father with a home. Getting to 5K in a year and a month is far better than I expected when I started the channel so I'm content for now and just building a diverse library of films at the moment. I'm glad you're here to grow the channel with us Alex.
Another wonderful video. Regarding your end comments about plot holes, I fully agree with you. People who want to see plotholes where a little thinking can fill in the gaps will ignore anything that is plausible. They'd rather spend the entire movie having the characters explain everything.
I appreciate that, Simon. Despite being small. It won't stop us from constantly making new content weekly if possible. Next week we plan on putting out 2 vids so we hope to see you again then.
It sounds like Close Encounters was released by Columbia in the older exhibition model: slow to modest city by city release with either a film coming to NYC and LA or starting in those cities and being released around the country eventually. The massive 500 or more theater release generally done years later at least up until the pandemic. I understand The Exorcist was released much slower and William Friedkin was furious at Warners for not putting the film in more theaters earlier. So no surprise that Spielberg was unhappy with Close Encounters release.
Terri Garr said in an interview on the sci/fi channel that was doing a special on the anniversary of the movie that Roy is the only one of the "pilgrims" taken aboard the space craft. And if you watch the scene it appears the aliens are going down the line of the pilgrims until they get to Roy where they all gather around him and take him into the craft.
That's possible but it goes against the book, the DVD and Spielberg's statements so I'm gonna stick with Pilgrims rather than pilgrim. Thanks for commenting.
I saw the same program and it was on the Sci/Fi Channel. I think it was 1997 and was called something like the 20th Anniversary Special of the release of Close Encounters. It talked about the making of the movie and went behind the scenes interviewing the actors. Terri Garr most definitely said that the Richard Dreyfuss character was the only person taken on board the craft. I saw the original release and director's cut and the only guy I saw in the Mother Ship was Richard Dreyfuss. You had the other humans picked by the government to go into space seen throughout the whole movie. Why not show them in the background coming onto the mother ship in the directors cut? It wouldn't have taken up more time. It would have given the viewing audience the comfort of knowing that regardless of where Richard was going he wasn't going to be alone and separated from his entire species for who knows how long? Wonder why there's no question asked if Richard and the others ever came back? They had interviews with Speilberg in the special and he didn't contradict her so I wonder if Steven is playing historical revisionism? In recent years he seems to have tried to water down his claim that his remake of "War of the Worlds" was not an attack on the US involvement in Afghanistan like he did when the movie was first released. As a veteran of the war I was more than angry at being compared to flesh eating and human blood drinking aliens. Spielberg is part of the "ruling class" with millions of dollars and sycophants who worship him as a deity. Each time he opens his mouth his followers swoon. Deities can change their minds without fear of repercussions. As an aside, I own the Special Edition DVD of the making of "Jaws." In recent years I have read "official" reports; some on YT, how 1. Susan Blacklinie; who plays the first victim of the shark was almost drowned by the machine that was pulling her around in the water. In my Special Edition DVD, Spielberg said it was him and 9 other guys that were pulling her around in a special harness by hand. No machine according to him. The sounds of her gurgling with water were done months later in post production in a recording studio with Speilberg pouring water over her. 2. There are other places say that scene was shot at night, but Bill Butler who served as director of photography said it was shot during the day with filters on the cameras. There's others I could list but you get the idea.
@@lonegunman1960 Thanks for your insights Lonegunman. I have found that in researching anything with Steven Spielberg you must find other sources to back up what he says as most of the time it does not match. Most Spielberg interviews change with time like his attempt to cast Steve Mcqueen for Close Encounters. In one interview he said he was in a bar; another he says he was at McQueen's house. I covered a bunch of his contradictions in my Jaws and Close Encounters vid and I think you are definitely right when you refer to his "historical revisionism." Simply research how he got to Universal studios. Steven says he snuck in on a tour and set himself up in an office while multiple people argued it was bull because he was an intern working in a department thanks to a family contact who gave him a tour of the studio when he was 16. Anyways, thanks for your input.
@@lonegunman1960 I also wondered about if they ever returned Richard to Earth. We see all those people who were lost in the Bermuda Triangle being returned but not having aged. The question I asked was did they come back with any knowledge or wisdom from their time spent with the aliens? The Flight 19 guys seemed to think they hadn't been gone that long and seemed quite confused. As you watched others come off the craft they seemed dressed in late 19th century or early 20th century clothing. What the heck were they doing for almost a century? I don't think Spielberg is a great moralist or religious man, but it makes me wonder if by not telling us what happened to Roy and if he returned, we're supposed to see a some kind of the ufo taking him up into heaven type of thing where he will finally find happiness since he was not happy on Earth? Which begs the question as to why the aliens took people who were happy with their lives? I doubt all those we saw coming off the mother ship hated humanity. Btw. Speaking of the Bermuda Triangle. I was born in one point of it (Puerto Rico) and spent a large portion of my life in a another (Miami) I can't guess how often I've flown over it. Swam and boated in it. And dived under it. Still looking for my first 🛸 ufo! 😆😉
@@jungle7315 Wow! Now you got me thinking!🤔 What if those scientists who went up in the Mother Ship came back with all this knowledge and technical expertise that they were able to give it to the government to find easier ways of controlling us? When you consider how crazy politics here in the US is, and what appears to be an Earth on the brink of destroying itself, we seem to be more polarized and divided like never before! Maybe we shouldn't think alien contact is beneficial to us! Remember that "Twilight Zone" episode "To Serve Mankind"? 😉
I bet Amtrak got REAL upset watching a model engine with its logo crash into a boxcar! I'm sure it was Amtrak Bureaucrats that pressured NASA & USAF not to cooperate with UFO movies
30:40 - I appreciate that you call it "heartbreaking" - but this is the female perspective coming into play (which is mind blowing because it's so long since I watched this), so she's telling you that this is not the truth... he's chosen a path that isn't "reality", ie: cold hard facts don't always necessitate what's happening. I never even saw this movie like this, but I always knew it hit me in the feels. Your analysis of these films is fantastic sir. Thank you.
Although solely credited to Spielberg the film's novelisation was largely written by Leslie Waller based on earlier drafts of the screenplay. According to Spielberg himself, he's only responsible for about 20% of the book because he was just too busy on the film's post-production.
My only real problem with Roy is leaving his kids to go on a joyride of the galaxy. I'm sure there are a lot of people who might but I cannot see leaving your kids to fulfill you wishes ahead of their need of their father. Maybe he comes back. Maybe it's temporary. I don't know
"In the 70's", UFO reports were not popular??? Behave, UFO reports are always "popular", with the public - but during the Cold War, no. I imagine reports weren't popular with defence forces - they don't need venus being considered as a Russian bomber (or vice-versa), what would you do?
Very much enjoyed these videos and was very interested in how it affected you personally , reading everything paranormal in libraries etc . Think the movie had a similar effect on me as a child . Have you seen anything unusual in the skies ?
I never saw a single thing up there and I think it's because I wanted to. I went nuts studying this stuff and anything paranormal. Like most folks I was never satiated with this subject and I still perk up when I find something new. I think once anyone gets into this topic that's the way they become for the rest of their life. Well at least that's the way it is for me.
@@RepresentThis I caught something out the corner of my eye silently floating over my house when I was 11 years old a few months after seeing close encounters . I think I may have already been interested in the unknown paranormal before that but the movie had a big impact on me when I think back . I've wondered if it had somehow opened up some sort of connection ? Still love watching it and I hadn't seen some of the deleted scenes before . Keep watching the skies . There's something out there .
@@greenmii6000 Since most pretty much believe in the phenomenon I wonder if they will just reveal themselves in the next few years unless they are waiting for something. Who knows, we shall see.
@@RepresentThis I've had three intense experience sightings I suppose would be the best description and they were all different and a bit crazy and too much to process ( 2 with other people there ) . I've got no idea if they would just show themselves . I just know there's something else out there . Haven't seen aliens . Just crazy things/objects/ships/machines in the sky .
4:56 Sorry to nitpick, but Spielberg was not the author of the novelization. The book is one of many film tie-ins written pseudonymously by the late American novelist Leslie Waller. (I see someone has beaten me to this observation.) Comparing the screenplay with with the book reveals an author with a different mindset to Spielberg. For instance, during the fight between Roy and Ronnie (that starts with him in the bath, trying to replicate his fading sunburn with a sunlamp), the screenplay has an unfilmed climax where Roy tears Ronnie's nightgown off in frustration, only to freeze and fixate on her breasts as yet another trigger of the mountain vision. In the novel, Waller misinterprets the scene, with the chapter ending by Roy realising, "Jesus, Ronnie had a great body."
Thanks for your comment and different attention to detail. I do know of Leslie Waller's writing of this novel and it was an oversight not mentioning him in the vid. The Ronnie blowse scene I decided not to cover in the vid as it was so contrary to the film style we ended up with. This only strengthens your comment because it shows a contrast to Steven's style at the time. Still Steven is noted with at least 20% of the book's authorship so he read the entire text and approved what was in the text. Since he's the creator of the film I put more stock into his approval over most film novels due to that fact. Perhaps I should have gone into this during the video, but it is what it is. The book is still really a great read and like all our vids we will always cover the tie-in books that are released parallel to a films premiere. In the end the film is what counts we just mention book details in hopes of getting any insights that make films better on repeat viewings. Thanks again Ocelotsly.
@@RepresentThis I neglected to mention how much I enjoyed your videos on this film. I once had ambitions of writing a book on it and did a lot of research. But there's stuff in your vids I didn't know.
@@ocelotsly5521 I appreciate that and hope you still go after the idea of writing a book on it someday. There can never be enough discussion about great films.
Ignore the detractors, whatever their quibbles are. You make fun, entertaining stuff. Your deep dives are great film documentaries. If someone doesn't like it, they can find something else to watch. ]Please keep up the good work.
And by "spiritual phenomenon", you mean, although you may not wish to describe it in quite this way - it's all in people's heads. There's another great facet of human belief that this also applies to... but I won't go into it here.
@@RepresentThis, it's certainly fascinating. However more and more I find it purely "spiritual" - which only makes it more interesting to me! To try and clarify, it makes it more interesting due to the fact that we can't yet scientifically describe the human mind, let alone define consciousness! So the idea that these things are happening "subconsciously", or in an alternative "dimension", which we have yet to define, opens up many realms of possibility - scientific or otherwise, that at least, make for a good yarn!
@@fearlessjoebanzai I agree completely, and movies could do so much more with this topic with a good writer who would be aware of the depth of said subject matter.
Lets recap - Richard Dreyfus farfs around with some mashed potatoes at the dinner table, Terri Garr looks on with an even-more-constipated-than-usual expression, the entire mess ends with some bloke with poncey hair churging out out some immediately forgettable notes on his own-brand Hammond C3? Close Encounters of the Turd Kind remains one of the most boring, dull, pretentious and turgid movies EVER. I know - Spielbergs involvement automatically makes it a (yawn) "classic", right? NOPE! BORING. Boring and pretentious......
My new favorite movie analysis channel! Just outstanding research and presentation. You had me at all the Alien movies, now I'm watching everything. Thank you and please keep up the amazing work!
Glad you're loving it. Next up will be Total Recall (1990) then Airplane, then John Carpenter's Halloween before we get back to Predator 2 and Beneath the Planet of the Apes with some possible changes.
I actually appreciate your bit about The Dark Knight Rises. Anytime I encounter someone who dislikes the film, it's always because of that or other superficial "plot hole" reasons, and they never point out any actual filmmaking flaws.
I agree, people make the movie out to be horrendous and it's clearly NOT! Maybe someday I'll cover that one, but I doubt it will be anytime soon.
I still have the Super 8mm 400 feet colour/sound with a run time of 16 minutes.
My Dad bought this back in 1979.
Awesome. I miss the big cameras as well.
Thank you so much. I have family in Marburg, so i was in Gießen a week ago. Still very chilled! Greetings from Germany!
I so miss Germany. As a child it was the place I called home. I've been back a few times but not since 1998.
I love your channel and your videos. thankyou for what you do
So happy you like it. Total Recall is next.
This was not a movie when I was a kid, but an event. It was like a documentary about UFO's. When the black guy at air traffic control asked, "Do you want to report a UFO ?" I was hooked. It was one of the best scenes in the film, to me. Then to have flight 19 mentioned was genius and that is an unbelievable story in its own right that to this day has never been resolved. So many people including me believe this movie was almost like a nudge from the government to slowly introduce and normalize ET's in order to get to where we are today with acceptance.
In mid 1970s England, Wham-O was the maker of the 1st Frisbee we’d ever seen when being advertised in some comic. I spent a period of time after this first sighting believing these new things were actually called Wham-O-Frisbees 😃👍
Awesome, I didn't know about Wham-O in England.
another great video essay brother. thank you for a great saturday morning watch.
I should have 2 vids for you posting next weekend.
@RepresentThis awe man that's spectawesome!!.. it was really cool hearing this vids prologue and how you had/have a very keen interest in the UFO/UAP/WTF(lol) subject man... I was born in 87 and since age 8 or so I ALWAYS caught EVERY UFO/paranormal doc and show on scifi channel... anyways man, I know that you and myself love film obviously but I would love to see you make some Paranormal material.. anyways just shooting the shite man.. keep up great work 👍!!!
@@ultimatesunrise Well, I plan on doing Poltergeist someday, does that count? :)
@@RepresentThis well he'll yea! 😆
Great Video!
I still have some Close Encounters cards! Great review!! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
It was an interesting set.
I have to say that I never realised how great an allegory this movie is for chasing your dream.
Your videos are fantastic sir.
I love your insight.
Thank you.
Thanks, fearless, hope you like the next one.
I remember the wonder bread cards.
Excellent analysis and presentation. Many, many things I didn't know about CE3K. I wish I still had my soundtrack album, novel and "fotonovel" (the days long before the internets were dreamed about). You made such a good point about the use of the night skies in the film, they are beautiful to watch. Thank you so much, as always Represent This, for making the best series of videos on this landmark film.
I don't think I could part with my soundtrack as I think this one was in my top 20 of all time. It's one of those to take with you if you are stranded on an island. The question is how you could play the darned thing.
@@RepresentThis I recall the gatefold design of the album cover and the amazing image contained when opened up. Would have been round about 1977 (of course). And the fotonovel, it was amazing at the time. Thank you for the clear passion you have about CE3K, especially now the film is approaching 50 years old. Your video inspired me to find this: watch?v=vzZQBVJgbag
@@lynstrom940 I will check that out, thanks for sharing it.
Great review, part 3. 👏👏👏👏👏
What I recall when I saw Close Encounters is that Roy is the quintessential unsuitable male character .
The film makes Roy the protagonist because he is not really suited to be a husband and father.
However in his job, he seems quite suited. He also likes his hobbies.
Therefore It was no surprise that Roy goes with the aliens at the end.
🕶️ fantastic channel, , well produced and thought out content 11 out of ten again❤
Thanks as always Apollyon9. Love that you're here.
Always a pleasure watching your videos. You make me look forward to every Friday even more
Glad you're with us CrazyKoenie.
@@RepresentThis I also decided to rewatch close encounters. Fantastic experience
@@CrazyKoenie It is a great film with lots of nuance.
I love your work and dedication. thankyou for everything you do.
We're already studying on our next film after Total Recall. We will keep em coming.
Brilliant work; as usual. Thank you!
Thank you, Andrew, appreciate you.
Haha, I always thought that third light in the dust storm was a dead pixel! Thanks for pointing it out!
You're the best.
Another amazing series buddy! You're work blows my mind!
Glad to hear. Email me CinemaGulp, wanted to ask you something. My email is in my channel description.
I've said this before, it's both to share with you and other commenters. I love movies and movie-making. Whenever I could I got extended cuts, commentaries and special features. Your documentaries are full of information but also have heart and personality. New movies rarely have this and don't have the love put into them. The subtle characterisations you mentioned make movies rewatchable.
Although not this movie, someone else I follow recently covered Dante's Peak and Volcano, more association than comparison. Out of the 2, I've only seen Volcano and even though it doesn't have a totally positive rating, I like it. It was fun and energetic and didn't take itself too seriously. What make me think of it is you saying about Richard Dreyfus' character being a big kid, because that's kind of me too. Where Volcano comes is the the daughter of Tommy Lee Jones' character who, by going by the actress was 15 years old. In so many movies where the young characters need to be brave, they are played by young-looking 19-year-olds and already have this bravery. But in that movie, she was a 15-year-old who was emotionally 13, that's how I saw her and when she needed to be brave it was so much more meaningful.
Look forward to sharing more with you. I will say of the two movies you mentioned I preferred Dantes Peak more. Both are fun watches though.
@@RepresentThis I accidently posted the message after just once sentence. I edited the rest so I hope you saw it.
I totally agree that everyone should THINK as they watch movies. Plot holes are fun to find but not everything is a legit plothole. Thanks again for doing what you do. I look forward to the day your channel has 100,000+ subscribers.
I think we are a long way from 100,000. I wish we were there so I could put all my time into the channel. However, I'm like Alan Grant when it comes to computers and tech so I really don't know how to promote the channel nor would I have time to do so as I spend about 60 hours a week making vids, have a job and I'm a father with a home. Getting to 5K in a year and a month is far better than I expected when I started the channel so I'm content for now and just building a diverse library of films at the moment. I'm glad you're here to grow the channel with us Alex.
@@RepresentThis You are a dude, I really like what you do. I look forward to watching all you do and experiencing this ride with you.
Another wonderful video. Regarding your end comments about plot holes, I fully agree with you. People who want to see plotholes where a little thinking can fill in the gaps will ignore anything that is plausible. They'd rather spend the entire movie having the characters explain everything.
I couldn't agree more.
Oh. I like it that the ETs did not give a time to be there. The ETs will be there when you are ready.
Great content once again!
Dude your channel is criminally underrated.
Keep up the good work!
I appreciate that, Simon. Despite being small. It won't stop us from constantly making new content weekly if possible. Next week we plan on putting out 2 vids so we hope to see you again then.
wonderful video
Thanks, seal, appreciate it.
Thank you so much for coming on the chat! That meant a lot man.
Oh, I'm happy to. Anything I can do to help your channel I'll do.
@@RepresentThis you are the man
What a terrific video beautifully presented😊
Thanks a bunch, Travixius.
It sounds like Close Encounters was released by Columbia in the older exhibition model: slow to modest city by city release with either a film coming to NYC and LA or starting in those cities and being released around the country eventually.
The massive 500 or more theater release generally done years later at least up until the pandemic.
I understand The Exorcist was released much slower and William Friedkin was furious at Warners for not putting the film in more theaters earlier.
So no surprise that Spielberg was unhappy with Close Encounters release.
Terri Garr said in an interview on the sci/fi channel that was doing a special on the anniversary of the movie that Roy is the only one of the "pilgrims" taken aboard the space craft. And if you watch the scene it appears the aliens are going down the line of the pilgrims until they get to Roy where they all gather around him and take him into the craft.
That's possible but it goes against the book, the DVD and Spielberg's statements so I'm gonna stick with Pilgrims rather than pilgrim. Thanks for commenting.
I saw the same program and it was on the Sci/Fi Channel. I think it was 1997 and was called something like the 20th Anniversary Special of the release of Close Encounters. It talked about the making of the movie and went behind the scenes interviewing the actors. Terri Garr most definitely said that the Richard Dreyfuss character was the only person taken on board the craft.
I saw the original release and director's cut and the only guy I saw in the Mother Ship was Richard Dreyfuss. You had the other humans picked by the government to go into space seen throughout the whole movie. Why not show them in the background coming onto the mother ship in the directors cut? It wouldn't have taken up more time. It would have given the viewing audience the comfort of knowing that regardless of where Richard was going he wasn't going to be alone and separated from his entire species for who knows how long? Wonder why there's no question asked if Richard and the others ever came back?
They had interviews with Speilberg in the special and he didn't contradict her so I wonder if Steven is playing historical revisionism? In recent years he seems to have tried to water down his claim that his remake of "War of the Worlds" was not an attack on the US involvement in Afghanistan like he did when the movie was first released. As a veteran of the war I was more than angry at being compared to flesh eating and human blood drinking aliens. Spielberg is part of the "ruling class" with millions of dollars and sycophants who worship him as a deity. Each time he opens his mouth his followers swoon. Deities can change their minds without fear of repercussions.
As an aside, I own the Special Edition DVD of the making of "Jaws." In recent years I have read "official" reports; some on YT, how 1. Susan Blacklinie; who plays the first victim of the shark was almost drowned by the machine that was pulling her around in the water. In my Special Edition DVD, Spielberg said it was him and 9 other guys that were pulling her around in a special harness by hand. No machine according to him. The sounds of her gurgling with water were done months later in post production in a recording studio with Speilberg pouring water over her. 2. There are other places say that scene was shot at night, but Bill Butler who served as director of photography said it was shot during the day with filters on the cameras. There's others I could list but you get the idea.
@@lonegunman1960 Thanks for your insights Lonegunman. I have found that in researching anything with Steven Spielberg you must find other sources to back up what he says as most of the time it does not match. Most Spielberg interviews change with time like his attempt to cast Steve Mcqueen for Close Encounters. In one interview he said he was in a bar; another he says he was at McQueen's house. I covered a bunch of his contradictions in my Jaws and Close Encounters vid and I think you are definitely right when you refer to his "historical revisionism." Simply research how he got to Universal studios. Steven says he snuck in on a tour and set himself up in an office while multiple people argued it was bull because he was an intern working in a department thanks to a family contact who gave him a tour of the studio when he was 16. Anyways, thanks for your input.
@@lonegunman1960 I also wondered about if they ever returned Richard to Earth. We see all those people who were lost in the Bermuda Triangle being returned but not having aged. The question I asked was did they come back with any knowledge or wisdom from their time spent with the aliens? The Flight 19 guys seemed to think they hadn't been gone that long and seemed quite confused. As you watched others come off the craft they seemed dressed in late 19th century or early 20th century clothing. What the heck were they doing for almost a century? I don't think Spielberg is a great moralist or religious man, but it makes me wonder if by not telling us what happened to Roy and if he returned, we're supposed to see a some kind of the ufo taking him up into heaven type of thing where he will finally find happiness since he was not happy on Earth? Which begs the question as to why the aliens took people who were happy with their lives? I doubt all those we saw coming off the mother ship hated humanity. Btw. Speaking of the Bermuda Triangle. I was born in one point of it (Puerto Rico) and spent a large portion of my life in a another (Miami) I can't guess how often I've flown over it. Swam and boated in it. And dived under it. Still looking for my first 🛸 ufo! 😆😉
@@jungle7315 Wow! Now you got me thinking!🤔 What if those scientists who went up in the Mother Ship came back with all this knowledge and technical expertise that they were able to give it to the government to find easier ways of controlling us? When you consider how crazy politics here in the US is, and what appears to be an Earth on the brink of destroying itself, we seem to be more polarized and divided like never before! Maybe we shouldn't think alien contact is beneficial to us! Remember that "Twilight Zone" episode "To Serve Mankind"? 😉
I bet Amtrak got REAL upset watching a model engine with its logo crash into a boxcar! I'm sure it was Amtrak Bureaucrats that pressured NASA & USAF not to cooperate with UFO movies
30:40 - I appreciate that you call it "heartbreaking" - but this is the female perspective coming into play (which is mind blowing because it's so long since I watched this), so she's telling you that this is not the truth... he's chosen a path that isn't "reality", ie: cold hard facts don't always necessitate what's happening.
I never even saw this movie like this, but I always knew it hit me in the feels.
Your analysis of these films is fantastic sir.
Thank you.
Although solely credited to Spielberg the film's novelisation was largely written by Leslie Waller based on earlier drafts of the screenplay. According to Spielberg himself, he's only responsible for about 20% of the book because he was just too busy on the film's post-production.
Thanks for pointing that out, Stephen. Appreciate your comment.
@@RepresentThis Thank you. Close Encounters is my favourite film, so I've enjoyed your videos so far.
My only real problem with Roy is leaving his kids to go on a joyride of the galaxy. I'm sure there are a lot of people who might but I cannot see leaving your kids to fulfill you wishes ahead of their need of their father. Maybe he comes back. Maybe it's temporary. I don't know
I agree Stoney, it's a really tough thing to swallow in the film.
Thanks!
Wow, thanks Jayc4070, it's you I need to thank. What a gift. I so appreciate such a gift. Thanks so much. Hope you loved the series.
It was "Semi TOUGH " not "Semi Rough"
"In the 70's", UFO reports were not popular??? Behave, UFO reports are always "popular", with the public - but during the Cold War, no. I imagine reports weren't popular with defence forces - they don't need venus being considered as a Russian bomber (or vice-versa), what would you do?
Googlearth those coordinates, an intake canal to the Platte River, near Greely, Colorado, several hundred miles SXSW of Devils Tower. Whatever.
Very much enjoyed these videos and was very interested in how it affected you personally , reading everything paranormal in libraries etc . Think the movie had a similar effect on me as a child . Have you seen anything unusual in the skies ?
I never saw a single thing up there and I think it's because I wanted to. I went nuts studying this stuff and anything paranormal. Like most folks I was never satiated with this subject and I still perk up when I find something new. I think once anyone gets into this topic that's the way they become for the rest of their life. Well at least that's the way it is for me.
@@RepresentThis I caught something out the corner of my eye silently floating over my house when I was 11 years old a few months after seeing close encounters . I think I may have already been interested in the unknown paranormal before that but the movie had a big impact on me when I think back . I've wondered if it had somehow opened up some sort of connection ? Still love watching it and I hadn't seen some of the deleted scenes before . Keep watching the skies . There's something out there .
@@RepresentThis cheers. ua-cam.com/video/3rRMAAqvVTg/v-deo.htmlsi=ghboEHjwjVY__DEB
@@greenmii6000 Since most pretty much believe in the phenomenon I wonder if they will just reveal themselves in the next few years unless they are waiting for something. Who knows, we shall see.
@@RepresentThis I've had three intense experience sightings I suppose would be the best description and they were all different and a bit crazy and too much to process ( 2 with other people there ) . I've got no idea if they would just show themselves . I just know there's something else out there . Haven't seen aliens . Just crazy things/objects/ships/machines in the sky .
LOSE NOT LOOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The end of this video was for you.
@@RepresentThis THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4:56 Sorry to nitpick, but Spielberg was not the author of the novelization. The book is one of many film tie-ins written pseudonymously by the late American novelist Leslie Waller. (I see someone has beaten me to this observation.)
Comparing the screenplay with with the book reveals an author with a different mindset to Spielberg. For instance, during the fight between Roy and Ronnie (that starts with him in the bath, trying to replicate his fading sunburn with a sunlamp), the screenplay has an unfilmed climax where Roy tears Ronnie's nightgown off in frustration, only to freeze and fixate on her breasts as yet another trigger of the mountain vision. In the novel, Waller misinterprets the scene, with the chapter ending by Roy realising, "Jesus, Ronnie had a great body."
Thanks for your comment and different attention to detail. I do know of Leslie Waller's writing of this novel and it was an oversight not mentioning him in the vid. The Ronnie blowse scene I decided not to cover in the vid as it was so contrary to the film style we ended up with. This only strengthens your comment because it shows a contrast to Steven's style at the time. Still Steven is noted with at least 20% of the book's authorship so he read the entire text and approved what was in the text. Since he's the creator of the film I put more stock into his approval over most film novels due to that fact. Perhaps I should have gone into this during the video, but it is what it is. The book is still really a great read and like all our vids we will always cover the tie-in books that are released parallel to a films premiere. In the end the film is what counts we just mention book details in hopes of getting any insights that make films better on repeat viewings. Thanks again Ocelotsly.
@@RepresentThis I neglected to mention how much I enjoyed your videos on this film. I once had ambitions of writing a book on it and did a lot of research. But there's stuff in your vids I didn't know.
@@ocelotsly5521 I appreciate that and hope you still go after the idea of writing a book on it someday. There can never be enough discussion about great films.
Ignore the detractors, whatever their quibbles are. You make fun, entertaining stuff. Your deep dives are great film documentaries. If someone doesn't like it, they can find something else to watch. ]Please keep up the good work.
Thanks, Snow.
And by "spiritual phenomenon", you mean, although you may not wish to describe it in quite this way - it's all in people's heads.
There's another great facet of human belief that this also applies to... but I won't go into it here.
Ufology is an endless subject and quite fascinating and sometimes disturbing.
@@RepresentThis, it's certainly fascinating. However more and more I find it purely "spiritual" - which only makes it more interesting to me!
To try and clarify, it makes it more interesting due to the fact that we can't yet scientifically describe the human mind, let alone define consciousness!
So the idea that these things are happening "subconsciously", or in an alternative "dimension", which we have yet to define, opens up many realms of possibility - scientific or otherwise, that at least, make for a good yarn!
@@fearlessjoebanzai I agree completely, and movies could do so much more with this topic with a good writer who would be aware of the depth of said subject matter.
Lets recap - Richard Dreyfus farfs around with some mashed potatoes at the dinner table, Terri Garr looks on with an even-more-constipated-than-usual expression, the entire mess ends with some bloke with poncey hair churging out out some immediately forgettable notes on his own-brand Hammond C3? Close Encounters of the Turd Kind remains one of the most boring, dull, pretentious and turgid movies EVER. I know - Spielbergs involvement automatically makes it a (yawn) "classic", right? NOPE! BORING. Boring and pretentious......
Everyone sees films the way they choose, and your views are no less valued than others. Thanks for commenting.
Terri Garr looks on with an even-more-constipated-than-usual expression okay that was funny but you're still wrong.
@@RepresentThis With the exception of the grammar I strongly believe you're a genius.
Wow. What a silly comment. Troll? Hundreds of millions of dollars later … you’re wrong. 😀