POLTERGEIST was directed by Steven Spielberg. Tobe Hooper was an assistant.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лис 2024
- For more film studies, including my full 2hr 37 min analysis of Poltergeist's hidden themes, visit www.collativele...
And at my main UA-cam channel / robag88
Support me on PATREON: / robager
Follow me on FACEBOOK: / robagerpublic
Follow me on TWITTER: Ro...
MERCHANDISE: www.redbubble....
One of my FB group members has found the footage mentioned in the vid regarding an early trailer for Poltergeist that shows Spielberg directing the film. Here it is ua-cam.com/video/DGZanwuNO7o/v-deo.html This confirms biographer John Baxter's claim.
Note that after Spielberg is shown directing in the opening shots, Hooper is shown briefly with the word "DIRECTOR" on screen. But if that caption wasn't there, anybody seeing this trailer would know Spielberg was directing the film. We can theorize editor bias toward Spielberg, but editor bias cannot conjure up footage (with dialogue sound) of a "PRODUCER" on set making aesthetic decisions that are clearly the director's role.
Whether you personally like or dislike Hooper or Spielberg (personally I'm a big fan of movies by both and I adore Salem's Lot as my fave vampire movie ever) is irrelevant.
Additional note: A particular user (decalfacilitators463) had posted some attempted retorts here in this comment section. Several of my reply comments were repeatedly being removed for some reason. I assume this is because some user had been falsely reporting my reply comments as spam or whatever to get them removed. decalfacilitators463 posted a very weak retort video here ua-cam.com/video/NU2WBfHILXA/v-deo.html and when I commented on it to point out how he'd edited out all the footage of Spielberg directing etc he removed my comment from his video. On that basis I'm removing decalfacilitators463's comments from my vid and blocking him from the channel.
As for the editor of the film, I feel that's a huge point towards Spielberg. When 'Jaws' came out, there were lots of people who said Virginia Field(A legend in her own right) was the reason 'Jaws' was done so well... And Spielberg never used her again. Kahn became his editor for the next 30+yrs EXCEPT on 'E.T.' I absolutely believe it's because Spielberg wanted his main editor overseeing Hoopers work while Spielberg himself could keep a good eye on the editing of 'E.T.' I'm trying to remember if his DP at the time also worked on 'Poltergeist' but that I'd have to double check.
Edit: The DP wasn't his usual but I do believe having Kahn work on 'Poltergeist' does say alot, especially with Spielberg being so heavily involved in the editorial process.
@@mk-ultramags1107I’m not sure Michael Kahn was working with Hooper when Hooper was editing his cut of the film. Kahn never mentions working with him in an interview, but producer Frank Marshall INSISTS Hooper worked on his cut for three months, beginning in August and completing it in November 1981.
There was an alien movie where the aliens were malevolent that Spielberg produced but it never came to fruition, i honestly think some of the scenes or ideas in that movie were used in Poltergeist
@@starwarsroo2448They weren’t, the two ideas were developed independently from each other. When Spielberg and Hooper were developing their treatment for “Poltergeist,” the alien film’s director, storyboard artist Ron Cobb, was working on the screenplay with writer John Sayles. In other words, they were being conceived simultaneously with no intention to cannibalize ideas from one to the other. Now when Night Skies was canceled, maybe Spielberg told the screenwriters to throw some stuff in there… but honestly, having read large chunks of the Night Skies screenplay (available online), I don’t see much crossover.
Smh Spielberg is shown doing special effects after the film was filmed but he didn't direct it
I met Tobe hooper a few weeks before he passed, he was such a nice guy, and he signed my texas chainsaw poster too 😊
Spielberg explicitly stated it was Hooper who directed Poltergeist.
Some misinformation here.
One, you focused on stylistic similarities with Spielberg’s filmography but dismissed exploring any similarities with Hooper’s.
You only referred to Baxter’s poor accounts of the movie. Spielberg biographer and self-proclaimed Spielberg fan Warren Buckland in fact did a meticulously detailed shot composition analysis and conceded Poltergeist shared more in common with Hooper’s visual style than Spielberg’s.
Hooper did in fact submit the first rough cut of the film, from which Spielberg made minor adjustments.
Reducing Hooper to an assistant on this classic is unfair and untrue. Spielberg hired him because he loved The Funhouse and was a huge fan of TX Chainsaw, a film that was a smash hit largely because it’s a work of Hooper’s incredibly intense, imaginative vision.
I did a neat interview with Martin Casella on my channel, who played Marty in Poltergeist. He claimed a lot that flies in the face of this, namely that “Tobe was in charge. It was Tobe.”
Yeah, he seems to just straight up ignore that film is a collaborative art. Sure, it has Spielberg's stamps all over it, but the cinematography does not really match up with Spielberg's style. Not to mention that the acting is way more naturalistic, which appears in stuff like TCM, and I even when Spielberg attempts to have naturalistic dialogue, it tends to still feel scripted. Not to mention that they probably referenced the Shining as a sort of reference to the fact that Salem's Lot and Spielberg love of Kubrick made them have a connection with Stephen King.
Of course, he showed his hand at the end of the video that he doesn't respect Hooper, so maybe he just can't admit that he likes a Hooper movie because of his ego.
Fair points here.
Ager makes some decent videos about films and I often enjoy watching them but from.my admittedly biased view as a former Film Critic & reviewer, Ager tends to skew toward psychological / sociological assessment of films primarily.
The problem is Ager doesn't have any formal academic education in literature or journalism nor does he have any technical background of knowledge of film or film. Industries.
His comments on Tobe Hooper Here are absolutely ridiculous and his take Spielberg/ Hooper directorial situation shows he had no understanding of
A) film production
B) film industry and unions
C) the politics of filmmaking .
It's a naive assessment meant to look educated and knowing here.
@thomasffrench3639 Yeah I think.he has every right not to like Tobe Hooper as a filmmaker but there has to n be a basic fairness in analyzing filns even if you don't like the filmmaker.
To say Poltergeist is Hoopers best work is ridiculous . Hooper made a solid horror film called The Funhouse and also did The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, a great horror film.
His views here veer on farce.
Well made, but i think it’s a little unfair to not include statements from people like Oliver Robins, James Karen, Martin Casella or Mick Garris regarding this issue.
I think Toby Hooper was just as capable of making complex special effects style movies.. Just look at "lifeforce"
I agree on this. I think this is the case with many filmmakers. However, I will say that Spielberg always got better performances out of his actors, from the well known to the character actors and extras etc. 'Lifeforce' is very well filmed though and I think the opening with the score booming in the background is just phenomenal filmmaking.
@@mk-ultramags1107Hooper can evoke real raw emotions, though, notably fear and anxiety. Marilyn Burns in Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Elizabeth Berridge in The Funhouse share the same “realistic” quality of JoBeth Williams in Poltergeist Spielberg’s emotions come off a little pre-cooked.
@@bobcalahan Absolutely. I love Tobe Hooper, moreso his earlier films but regardless, his sensibilities and earlier films are more in line with the likes of a William Friedkin than Spielberg. It's what makes the entire story behind this film so unique. Hooper certainly brought some of his own techniques to 'Poltergeist' but i still think the film feels more in line with Spielberg's sensibilities(From the family dynamics and lighter thrills) than Hooper's, IMO of course.
@@mk-ultramags1107 Well… he wrote it. It’s like a filmmaker making a Marvel movie. Would they ever consider doing such a thing if it weren’t for Kevin Feige, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, etc.? No, but in special instances, they manage to make it their own.
Salem's lot! Imo tobe Hooper masterpiece! 👌 along with poltergeist of course!
One thing should be clarified about the best point in this video, which is about storyboarding. Spielberg’s intense interest in pre-planning hit a wall when he met Hooper, who does not like to work with storyboards and pre-planning. (Spielberg would go on to direct “E.T.” without extensive storyboarding, so maybe he learned a thing or two from Hooper on the “Poltergeist” set, too). That said, it is quite ridiculous to say that Hooper was not involved in storyboarding the film. Hooper claims he did “fully half the storyboards” (likely with uncredited storyboard artist Carl Aldana). Richard Lasley eventually got credit in an updated credits fifteen years later, but there is no evidence to suggest Hooper was not just as involved in Lasley’s work storyboarding the biggest effects sequences. Just as every Jerry Bruckheimer film will have similar explosions and stunt sequences, just like an Cannon Film will have a choppy and cheesy house style, Hooper did his best putting his imprint on a big impersonal studio film.
A little bit too much is made of this. What it came down to is that Tobe Hooper has a certain low key directing style and was faced with the presence of the forceful personality of Mr. Spielberg, who had come up with the story, written the screenplay, and was using the movie as a template for the production company he was launching. A lot was riding on it and Hooper yielded to a great degree, but also considered that his job was to make the movie Spielberg wanted made and was fully involved. He just wasn't an animated guy. It does say something that Spielberg had Michael Kahn edit the movie (same with The Goonies).There were certainly mistakes made in showing so much of Spielberg at work in the featurette, and in making Spielbergs's name larger than Hooper's on that and the trailers (which caused a controversy), but Hooper's contribution should not be undermined. It's a lot like Gone with the Wind and The Thing From Another World. We think of them as movies by David O. Selznick and Howard Hawks, respectively, not Victor Fleming and Christian Nyby.
Speaking of Victor Fleming -- he was the main director of The Wizard of Oz, for which there are many references in Poltergeist,, and 1943's A Guy Named Joe, which appears on a TV in Poltergeist (it's an MGM film) and which Spielberg remade as Always. At the time it was looking to be his next film. The original writers for Poltergeist, Michael Grais and Mark Victor, in fact, initially met with Spielberg to discuss THAT project, but the conversation moved into the topic of life after death and they were asked to write "It's Nighttime," which was the original title for Poltergeist. Hooper finding Robert Wise's notes for The Haunting was apparently true, but it was coincidental. Hooper just merged his ideas for a haunted house movie with what Spielberg had already been planning.
The reason why ghost effects are similar to Raiders is that the ILM animation technique used was created for Raiders, and when it proved successful, it became something new to explore. The issue of directing two films at the same time only concerns the dates for principal photography, and Poltergeist was done with that more than a month before E.T. started. There's no problem being in principal photography on one movie while in preproduction on another. Those ARE Spielberg's hands in the face tearing scene, and the parapsychologist is played by an actor who was Spielberg's assistant on 1941 and Raiders. And just FYI, while it's meant to evoke the sound of children, the voices singing in the end credits (as well as the laughter) are actually nine adult women.
Were the skeletons in the pool pit real? Asking for a friend.
@@DVincentWYes. They were real skeletones from Asia, where life is cheap…
This to me feels the most likely case, and this rumour probably only grew after that making-of EPK from the LD was missing from home media for so many years (until the 4K), letting people speculate one had to be the true auteur. But this sort of stuff happens often, look at 'The Goonies' or 'Gremlins', movies produced by Spielberg that people mistake for projects he directed. Poltergeist is definitely more Spielberg's style but it was his baby and Tobe Hooper was a director-for-hire on this one.
'Poltergeist' has two dads, and that's okay.
@@KevinStriker Tobe Hooper first met with Spielberg about making a film about ghosts and poltergeist in February or March of 1980. He would not approach the two screenwriters, Grais and Victor, until November or December, 1980.
He and Hooper had collaborated on and essentially developed the general arc of story and the film’s treatment by then. "Director-for-hire" is a bit of a misnomer. But "two dads" is the right way to put it.
@@bobcalahan Fair enough, I had to parse most of what was consistent from other people online because there's only so much BTS info on the official release.
I know somebody who had a chat to Hooper about it years before he died. He hated Steven Spielberg for circulating the myth that he was the real director of Poltergeist. It's true Spielberg hired Tobe Hooper so he can make the movie since he couldn't direct multiple movies in one year. Spielberg would try to hijack the directing duties from Hooper on multiple occasions much to Hooper's dismay. This was when Spielberg was still young and arrogantly wanted full control on any project he was doing even when he was supposed to be a producer not a director. Despite feeling like a Spielberg movie with the suburban family there are moments that are quintessential Hooper especially the clown and the pit of skeletons (real skeletons like ones used in Texas Chainsaw). Also while Speilberg can direct horror and has supernatural moments like the melting face in Raiders and Jaws- it's the unrelenting terror in Poltergeist that only Hooper could make work. As for the Kubrick, Star Wars and the similarity of the Raiders melting face with the face pulling apart scene - Speilberg was involved in the script and storyboards as you mentioned so that's the reason.
i see elements of both of them in there but yeah the storyboards would explain that
@@Tony-gq9yt It's hard to say since none of us were actually there and this is all based on heresay. Mick Garris was on set doing publicity and said Tobe Hooper was the director of the film. I also know some of the actors were snobby at Hooper since he made low budget horror movies (even classics like Texas Chainsaw was seen as an exploitation picture at the time). So Tobe Hooper's laid back approach compared to Spielberg's highly organized approach clashed hence Spielberg tried to take over the movie which is probably what those behind the scenes things are taken from.
@@Tony-gq9ytHaha what. I never said I hated Spielberg or that I am a die hard fan of Hooper. In fact I probably like Spielberg movies than I do Hoopers. My point is from what someone told me, who I trust, is that Hooper was trying to direct the movie but Spielberg didn't allow him to fully and he never intended him to. Even though Spielberg is a great filmmaker and has made some of the best movies of all time he was a bit of an ass the way he treated Hooper. It may very well be that Spielberg did direct a large portion of the movie (although with Hooper on the side) but Hooper did try anyway. Hooper was hired by Spielberg again to direct an episode of Amazing Stories. It could be he was desperate for money after his Cannon flops or maybe the drama was over escalated. But from what that friend told me he never forgave Spielberg for getting him into that whole shitshow.
@@Tony-gq9yt That very well could be true. Some people say the same about George Lucas directing Empire and especially Return of the Jedi. And some movies like Tombstone people claim weren't directed by anybody! I do think Hooper did have some input though. The guy at least earlier in his career did know what scared people and how to scare people. Jaws in its opening half does have some excellently crafted horror sequences as well. But Hooper knew how to make something truly terrifying which Spielberg may not have at that point.
It's a shame the collaboration didn't work out as well as George Lucas and Steven on Raiders. As someone who's been on actual film sets I have first hand experience with creatives with personality clashes and I think that may have been what happened with Poltergeist. I think Steven was very young and cocky at that point (why wouldn't he? he made some of the best movies of all time by that point) but that arrogance made him an ass and as such took over directing duties when he really shouldn't have.
My personal take from reading accounts, looking at Spielberg’s script, and noticing a general air of contempt for Hooper from people in Spielberg’s “camp” (e.g. Richard Edlund, ILM artists and production artists) is that Hooper pushing back at all to Spielberg and insisting on things that did not conform to Spielberg’s plans - which did happen, numerous rewrites and restructuring of scenes occurred mid-production, so much of Spielberg’s comedy is stripped out, and storyboards are often roundly ignored - was seen as a threat and the fact Hooper won out so often (and I’d argue this is because Hooper and Spielberg did have a positive relationship on set, much like Lucas and Spielberg, and the acrimony would not emerge until the film was done and the rumors started spreading) caused those individuals to make up stories.
What’s interesting about the idea that Spielberg always wanted to make the film is that he handed it off to two other screenwriters first and did some story sessions with them. The draft they turned in was deemed unacceptable to both Spielberg and Hooper and, a mere three months before shooting *had* to begin because of an ensuing writer’s strike and director’s strike, a shooting script was hastily written between them. For a supposed passion project of Spielberg’s, he sure put himself in a corner. Now I can assume he became excited about what he had written and thus began to think he wanted control, but this would be to overlook the fact Hooper was already deeply involved and surely would not agree to be a push-over on an idea he was helped develop and was knee-deep in pre-production on (and every account states Hooper handled pre-production in a thorough manner). I think stories of Spielberg conniving or planning to take over are overstated and it was more his ego and control freak nature for something he wrote - although, remember, Hooper helped write the story treatment, so half the ideas are his also.
No way I was here within an hour! I saw the Shining videos years ago and last week just thought of this channel again and rewatched the analysis of The Thing movies. Some of the best analysis I've seen on UA-cam keep it up
😂 I just rewatched them yesterday after showing my girlfriend the Thing this past weekend.
What about The Goonies as that was directed by Richard Donner but has got Spielbergian feel from the kids to the cave stuff. I could see bits of Hooperism in Poltergiest, even the suburbian street looks similar to Salam's Lot. Yes the food with maggots is Hooper. Even the pot smoking is Hooper the finale with when the ghost lifts jobeth's t shirt exposing her knickers is Hoopery. I couldn't imagine Spielberg's directing that bit. Yes I can understand why most people might see Speilberg vision especially the special effects but you could also see bit of similar scenes in Tobe Hooper's Lifeforce.
Personally I feel the film was collaborative between Hooper and Speilberg no much difference to Donner and Speilberg in The Goonies or Joe Dante and Speilberg. I feel that the whole Speilberg directed Poltergiest damaged Hooper film career.
Spielberg directed the goonies more than he did poltergeist or Donner did the goonies. Sean Astin talked of them both directing it but nobody says that about hooper other than hateful Tangina
He actually did direct parts of the movie, but his stuff was cut from the film like the deleted zoo apes sequence. It’s reasonable to conclude that his influence was all over Poltergeist and The Goonies, sometimes he directed them himself
Reverend Kane in Poltergeist 2 gave me nightmares when I was younger
Why?
I always heard that Spielberg couldn’t direct Poltergeist because he was directing ET so that should settle it.
Tobe Hooper films centre around family Texas Chain Saw and Invaders Mars spring to mind.
I always remember Zelda Rubenstein saying she didn’t like Hooper’s direction because he was always high.
Also Hooper is super technically proficient watch his best movies and the sound design; shot composition and themes are just top notch and sometimes he even does the music too.
And Hooper actually saw a poltergeist in real life or so he says for what it’s worth.
I think he directed poltergeist for sure although I count venom as a Tobe Hooper film and he got the sack after a week or so on that so I might not be the best judge.
you should talk to Joe Bob Briggs about this topic
Every film set is different of course, but it's more common than known that several film sets have two functional directors, one just shows up a little later in the morning.
The trope we all have in our heads of film directors being these lone wolf visionaries, even in the 70s and 80s, was actually the exception.
This period Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg, De Palma, Milius were all friends who worked on each others projects too
@@starwarsroo2448Don't forget Scorsese as well.
@Thespeedrap I don't know how tight he was with those guys I said, I know when Lucas showed a rough of Star Wars he showed it to all those, Milius helped Spielberg with the Indianapolis scene, so I'm citing here, not just assuming
Spielberg only visited the set about a dozen times which ends the 'rumor' pretty easily
That in itself is your own false rumour.
@@robag555 It seems to be closer to the truth than "he was there every day but three" that was the line picked up by the press. Two actors have said his presence dwindled to nothing by the end of the shoot.
Exactly. Pretty hard to DIRECT when you are not on the set haha@@RichEmboldt
@@blacknapalm2131 He implanted a permanent earpiece in Hooper's cochlea, no doubt.
Corey Feldman wrote in his autobiography that he should had been in E.T. too as a friend of the main child actor but his character was cut out in the final draft. So Spielberg himself called Feldman at his home, promissed him that he will find a new role for him (and that became Gremlins). Anyway Feldman was at the studio in that time and Spielberg showed him the set from the Poltergeist movie. He was "busy producing (and according to murmurings within the industry, unofficially directing) that movie".
Well, doesn’t sound like he was very busy doing any directing when he was inviting friends to the sound stage, honestly…
@@bobcalahan When Feldman was already there and Spielberg had a few minutes time, why not?.... 🙄
@@ranulf8477 I dunno. Just saying. Spielberg was definitely casting “E.T.” at the time and Henry Thomas has a very similar story of being shown the “Poltergeist” set. So in that case, he was very busy doing “E.T.” stuff.
It strikes me that the Monolith and TV Screen are symbolic of a doorway or gateway to another dimension, which is inaccessible to the living. Both are opaque like the pupil of your eye, and the pupil is the doorway to the soul.
These gateways are ordinarily closed to physical matter, but the immaterial soul can cross over after death.
In Poltergeist, the other dimension / limbo is comparable to a womb. Carolanne needs to be pushed out by her mother, and both are covered in slime, which is the afterbirth.
Thank you for your thought provoking and excellent analysis!
I agree, I mean just on the surface of it if the film had always had Spielberg credited as director no one would ever question it. It has the feel of a Spielberg film, everything about it just fits into the kind of films he would make at the time. That magical/supernatural thing happening to an ordinary suburban family, that sense of wonder.
Plenty of movies where Spielberg was producer look and feel like something he directed
Poltergeist's general look does "feel" like a Spielberg film (i.e. Close Encounters and E.T.). But that also has to do with a lot a reasons. That look was a combination of the era (1970s/early 1980s) and big budget production values (including the Jerry Goldsmith score), as well as the premise/setting (suburban family). Hooper's films aren't about families and they don't take place in suburbia. The individual shots and tone feel largely Hooper's. I don't think a case was made to justify the video's title. I think more time could have been spent on drawing parallels between Hooper's films and Poltergeist.
Hooper's "Invaders from Mars" deals with families, and it takes place in a suburb.
Just watch the trailer for Lifeforce. Tobe Hooper was beyond capable!
That said, I can see Raiders in Poltergeist.
Lifeforce isn't nearly as good as it looks. I was in love with that vampire at age 13 though lol.
Spielberg and Kubrick use 237 because in Strongs Concordance (Greek) it means "from another place" or "by another way". ...it refers to the realm of Satan. ...You will find, as Jonathan Kleck often points out, that MANY films use Strongs concordance (Greek and Hebrew) to communicate hidden messages to "those in the know". ...anyway, Hope it helps. All the Best.
Tobe directed it but yes Spielberg had alot to do with the creation of the film but he didn't direct it but the film is what it is because of the both of them coming together so the director controversy is played out. Without hooper its a totally different lesser film & same goes for Spielberg's involvement
I'm always on about Kubrick's great sense of humour. There it is again at the end of the credits for The Shining. He finishes his own film with applause! That's confidence!
I think Texas Chainsaw Massacre is far better than Poltergeist. Also i always felt Poltergeist was a prelude to a far bigger, better movie to come out two years later, that of course being Ghostbusters, with much of the effects, creatures, spooky feeling and invading someone's home(Dana's in Ghostbusters), similar in tone to Poltergeist, who else agrees.
For me, Hopper's best film is Lifeforce.
I don't really care who did what, I just think it's a phenomenally entertaining film.
We'll politely ignore the sequels though, and stick two fingers up to the remake.
The remake was so awful I didn't even finish it.
@@collativelearning I battled my way through the trailer, that told me all I needed to know about the remake, and to avoid it. Which gutted me somewhat because Sam Raimi had a hand in producing it, and I genuinely love that guy, but I learned that even my love has a line in the sand.
@collativelearning one of the few times I regret not walking out of the theater. I think it's biggest sin was how *boring* it was; at least Poltergeist 2 (and to a much lesser extent 3) have some interesting things happening and nice practical effects.
The producers of Poltergeist 2 should've offered Hooper the directing job as an apology for the aggregation he dealt with.
The producers (the co-screenwriter pair of the first film) said they offered it to him. Hooper and Spielberg’s idea for the sequel, which Hooper claimed they talked about, was much more interesting… it would follow the government team investigating the bilocation spot the house disappeared into. Hooper probably did not want to simply explore the same old ground (which is what the sequel does).
I was telling my brother in law the other day "I don't always agree with Rob Ager, but I always want to hear his opinion on a film".
I'm curious to know what references are indicative of Tobe Hooper and not Spielberg. You show Spielberg's side but not Hooper's. I think a comparison of the two is needed to show which one had a larger impact on the making of the film, not just a one-sided affair.
Hooper had a unique interest in the mystical and supernatural. His debut film Eggshells features a “crypto-electronic embryonic presence” that manifests as a gaping maw in the basement wall. Hooper’s father died when he was a late teen and he says he experienced poltergeist activity shortly after. He was fascinated in the small inconvenience that is this otherworldly effect on the natural world. I think we can attribute a lot of the small poltergeist incidents that we see in the film to Hooper. Kubrick’s The Shining had just released when they started planning the film, and so it was really on everybody’s mind at that point. While Hooper may not have gotten a personal tour of the “Shining” set like Spielberg, Hooper always had a similar way of shooting oppressive settings by pulling back as much as possible, like a documentarian. Certainly Hooper treats the house often in a similar way as Kubrick would, although Hooper was less interested in any chilly thesis so much as the way a house reflects the psyches of the characters. There are a number of references to the films “Wizard of Oz” and “The Uninvited.” “The Wizard of Oz” carries a number of potent resemblances to Hooper’s Grimm’s Fairy Tale proclivities (“Texas Chain Saw” was modeled after Hansel and Gretel) and Alice Through the Looking Glass themes as he throws his heroines into candy-colored nightmare worlds. Hooper was also highly influenced by Robert Wise’s “The Haunting,” which he has named as a contender for his favorite film.
It is widely accepted that Spielberg had a heavy hand in the making of Poltergeist. As executive producer at the time he enjoyed many collaborations with other directors, but only Poltergeist has so many Spielberg themes and aesthetic touches. Also the sense of humour contrasts greatly with Hooper's other movies. Much of the similarities between Spielberg's other movies and Poltergeit can be attributed to several of his collaborators working on the film. The cited similarities between Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Poltergeist come from the ILM team who did the effects for both films. I would not be surprised to learn that several of the corpses used in the pool scene in poletrgeist were leftovers from the Well of the sould scene in Raiders.
It also has many Hooper themes and aesthetic choices. How do we account for this occuring simultaneously? Perhaps a director who approaches storytelling in a very similar way to Spielberg in that he does not imprint any “personal touch” so much as he simply tells a story in a classical and elegant way. That describes Hooper as much as Spielberg. Yes, one cannot deny that Spielberg wrote this film “from his own typewriter, with his own two hands,” as he says himself, but that same script features a heaping more comedy relief and superfluous gags (and that is to discount the number of drafts there are of the film concurrent with Hooper’s taking the project through pre-production).
There is a dark morbid humor to “Poltergeist” that coincides with Hooper’s style. It isn’t quasi-sadistic, like the Spielberg/Zemeckis/Gale style of cartoon violence and deaths, but it does account for things like the circular nature of the characters’s suffering, much like where Hooper’s protagonist find themselves in the ends of “Texas Chain Saw” and “The Funhouse.
Plus, I don’t know about the “Raiders” skeletons, but I do know that Hooper’s “Chain Saw” production designer Robert Burns was commissioned to provide at least two of the final corpses from his workshop in Austin.
I’d also suggest watching or rewatching the “Twilight Zone” movie, namely the Dante and George Miller sections. They are outwardly Spielbergian (without Hooper’s “classical” restraint), with dollies into lit faces and elaborate one-takes. It’s all about what a production offers a director. Hooper simply suffered due to “Poltergeist” his writer being also his producer (one he was happy to collaborate with in the set), and the most popular director in the world.
This wasn't sent to me Subscriptions feed for some reason. Figured you'd want to know that's happening again
I was wondering if this was happening to anyone else. I've been subbed to this and the other CL channel for a long time and new videos will not show up in my subscriptions.
It's the first time, for me. But I know it's happened to him before
Referring to the full video-I know this was done years ago, and you've probably learned this since then, but both The Entity and the rape scene in Poltergeist were based on a supposedly real-life event that was either in a newspaper or a book. A woman reported the events in great detail. It was of course only briefly alluded to in Poltergeist, whereas The Entity was entirely built around her story.
The Entity is a good movie.
Why praise Spielberg's selfishness and then diss Hooper for going along with it?
Another Spielberg film that focuses on the family is his 2005 version War of the Worlds. This aspect is particularly distinct when compared to either Haskin's 1953 release or the original H.G. Wells story.
Yeah, but that's why it sucked. Focusing on the family isn't always the best idea when telling a cinematic narrative.
@@morbius_of_krell Yes, I agree. I'm just pointing out that it's another movie where Spielberg used the family as a locus of the film.
Quite a few of these ideas are a stretch though. In regarding Hooper, there is no rule saying he HAD to impliment callbacks or 'vibes' of his previous films. There's no doubt Spielberg was very hands-on with the Poltergiest production, but insisting the call-backs to Spielberg's previous means Hooper didn't direct isn't very fair. Hooper is also known to being a team player with his productions. With a person as big as Spielberg on set, of course Hooper wouldn't stand in his way. I also want to point out that Spielberg respects the industry he is part of and if there were rules against him directing two films at the same time, he would've stood behind them.
And while Hooper is mostly known for lower-budget films, it's also extremely unfair to say that Hooper wasn't capable of making a complex film such as Poltergiest. He was a gifted director in his own right for his respective genre of film. Was it Speilberg-esque? You bet! But not many of Hooper's own films resemble previous or later films. Look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre compared to Lifeforce for an example. Hell, even Texas Chainsaw Massacre II is a completely different looking and feeling kind of movie than the first installment. Overall, this is a good video and I appreciate your analysis but I think you just might be a bit bias to Spielberg in this case. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not reach TOO far and underrcut the talent and contribution of another filmmaker based on bias alone.
Could you analyse Southern Comfort? It was one of my favourite films growing up.
RIP Heather Orourke... look at what her mother said about how exactly the last days of her daughters life transpired. Look up what the studio told her.
You do realise that O'Rourke died 6 years after Poltergeist and made two more films in the series and appeared in 9 different TV shows before she passed away ?
@@andrewglazebrook1585 of course, she was very popular amongst the (executives)
@@enochianwolf Let me guess, and Tom Hanks eats babies ?!
@@andrewglazebrook1585 no man, he's america's shining son, he's the moral and good standard. haven't you seen his movies? what a great guy.
@@andrewglazebrook1585 it turns out, when someone becomes powerful enough to get away with very bad behavior, they tend to exercise it.
If I'm not mistaken Spielberg also helped editing "Eyes Wide Shut" after Kubrick's death.
you are mistaken
You mean A.I EYS was finished by Kubrick before his passing.
People really need to let go of this nonsense. If you really think Tobe Hooper is incapable of directing something like Poltergeist, I suggest you watch the director's cut of Lifeforce and shut up.
Lifeforce is about the closest thing to a Spielberg style that Hooper directed, though made several years later, but it's not a very good film. The similarity is mainly in the use of supernatural light, but the themes are still different to Spielberg and Poltergeist. So you shut up ;)
I've only seen Lifeforce once, it was okay, but I thought the direction of the actors and camerawork were nowhere as high calibre at that of Poltergeist. Spielberg's other films of that period were high calibre.
@@moviearchaeologist9655perfection doesn’t mean greatness. It’s the enemy of cinema. Your name is movie archaeologist and you haven’t got a clue. Typical
Poltergeist most certainly does not "knock the hell out of" Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
It does in that it looks cheap as hell visually. Poltergeist is far slicker technically than anything I've seen from Hooper. Thematically they're both packed with themes.
@@collativelearningHave you seen Lifeforce? If not you should really check it out. I think it's one of Hoopers best films, better than Poltergiest in fact.
@@collativelearningI assumed, since you apparently know so much about filmmaking, that you would know that the guerilla-style cinematography of Texas Chainsaw adds to the realistic and gritty atmosphere of the film...
@@collativelearning I don't disagree that Poltergeist is 'slicker', but in my humble opinion, that doesn't automatically make it better overall.
Love Poltergeist but was thinking the exact same thing, the 74 TCM is spectacularly well made, watch the 4K of it on a big telly and tell me that film isn’t amazing.
The opening alone with the narration, crazy camera flash sound and opening titles of solar flares mixed with radio broadcasts is worth the ticket price alone.
Plus the fact it was film in over 100f heatwave by a crew straight out of film school just gives it so much energy.
There is a reason it’s still being talked about nigh on 50 years after it was released, always love you opinions Rob and praise you up constantly to anybody who will listen but your way of on this.
I think it helped Tobe Hooper more than it hurt him. I don’t believe there are any reports of him giving anything but appreciation for the opportunity.
I don’t know… he was not happy about how the shoot was represented in the press to the public after the film was shot:
(circa 1982) “It’s going to take another picture for me to prove to a lot of people I'm not just a parasite,' Hooper admitted to columnist Marilyn Beck.
'Poltergeist has inconvenienced my reputation. It is making things more difficult for me, I must say. And it is so unfair. I was the only one who directed the picture. I wasn't off in a time capsule for the last year - as some make it sound. But there's nothing I can do now but look ahead…hopefully with a major studio, but one way or another (something) will be made. It must be made to set the record straight. And put an end to all this Poltergeist talk.'
He even sued the studio over it all.
Remember that Lucas directed most of Return of the Jedi, and still credited Marquand. Lucas and Spielberg being friends, they might share ideas and advice each other clever ways to get their way in the film industry
But the music was 100% Jerry Goldsmith.
Thank you! It is exactly like a Spielberg movie in terms of blocking, shots, mise en scene, cinematography, emotional manipulation, and action choreography. It feels like a paranormal Jurassic Park. Far from being a gore fest or an unsettling psychological thriller, it’s a fun and lighthearted family friendly-ish blockbuster.
Temple of Doom is very dark and disturbing as well.
I love your channel but this is the sort of clickbait worthy of "the wendy theory", Tobe Hooper was an immensely talented director and this Poltergeist rumor was dumb when it was introduced and is still dumb now
Gillian (I think that's her name) in Close Encounters also touched the TV screen while they were showing the Devil's Tower news footage. Plus of course (obvious stuff) both films featured toys coming alive and moving by themselves. I never even paid attention to who was listed as director, and just knew it was Spielberg. His hand is all over it.
*_SS and GL had a bet back in the day that SS came up with, too cheer up GL as GL thought SW would bomb at the box office._*
*_They traded Box Office Points with each other. Since that day, SS has made near $100Million on this bet as SW became a huge hit. This is why SS Directed "Order 66" sequence in Sith and why SS has so much SW toys and posters in his movies; SS has felt some shame in winning so much money off GL's work and has always paid it back some how. I suspect this is also why SS Directed Indy 4._*
They've always been best friends, there's never been any animosity between them. Yes, those five points of Star Wars made Spielberg a ton of money, but it's not like Lucas doesn't have tons of money of his own? Besides, owning five points of Close Encounters isn't chicken shit either....
While I understand why you did it, I don’t think Spielberg would appreciate his name being abbreviated to “S.S.”
@@TheRealNormanBatesi thought 😊that lol
12:07 I guess the crowd sound could also imply that the audience watching the movie ARE the overlook hotel guests, watching a show within the hotel's setting somehow, which is kind of cheesy but the two ideas aren't an either-or
I don't know how they got away with that bathroom scene. The guy was getting microwaved!
Thank you Rob for your work. Its really inspiring.
It's*
its really bullshit
Perhaps Spielberg was emulating George Lucas' production of the Star Wars sequels (ie. hiring a director to help run the set while making the majority of creative decisions as producer). Producer driven movies incidentally, used to be the norm during the Studio System era.
Hooper himself compared his relationship to Spielberg to Lucas and Spielberg's relationship on "Raiders of the Lost Ark." He said this in 1982, showing his perspicacity about the issue. It's closer to that than it is to Lucas and his "Star Wars" directors because, well, Hooper originated the concept of the film and developed the story with Spielberg. Kershner may have done that with Lucas, but for Hooper to say, "I had this idea before I met Spielberg" is not worth nothing.
But you're right, "Poltergeist" became a producer-driven film very similar, and I actually find "Poltergeist," in many ways, a striking homage to classical studio system filmmaking, from the contained soundstage shoot, to how effectively Hooper was able to develop ideas within such a big-budget tentpole film, to the fact the number of VIPs on set surpassed even the director and producer - Frank Marshall was in on the project from very early on, Richard Edlund's FX were often dependent on quick, mid-production ideas (as most of the creatures were conceived to be opticals added later), and actually, neither Hooper nor Spielberg were the ones who came up with the face-ripping scene! Reminds me of there being at least two 2nd Unit directors filming stuff simultaneously to principle photography on Wyler's BEN HUR.
Fascinating!@@RichEmboldt
If this is true, it makes me lose respect for Spielberg as it was a very unfair position to put Tobe Hooper in. The biggest film of his career and it wasn't really his and he'd have to spend the rest of his life being considered a faker. All so Spielberg could make two movies at once.
Spielberg also made a horror movie for TV called SOMETHING EVIL. It's a haunted house movie with Darren McGavin.
The STAR WARS references may come off as crass commercialism. But that's also a childhood reality. A needed detail for realism for the audience at that time.
Regarding the Iwo Jima statue, there is a version of that statue in Washington DC. It is supposed to be an extra hand not connected to a soilder lifting the flag representing a "Hand of God".
Supposedly, Stephen King was as asked to co-write but was unable. And John Carpenters's DOP Dean Cundly was also asked to be a DOP but was booked. He ended up working on JURRASIC PARK and Robert Zemekis.
There is a Twilight Zone episode called "Little Girl Lost" written by Richard Matheson that plays as a rough draft for POLTERGEIST. So much so, that THE TWILIGHT ZONE movie was made for legal reason to put Matheson at ease for payment.
I met and spoke with Art Rochester, the sound recording. He claimed for the most part both men were on set. Basically, Tobe would start, Steven would approve.
There are stories about Spielberg directing an entire subplot with gorillas from THE GOONIES. But it was removed. I see this as Spielberg learning how to be more of a producer.
Interesting to note in Spielberg’s screenplay, the TV sign-off is the region-accurate footage of the Blue Angel military jets. Very Spielberg, while the Iwo Jima statue is very Hooper (in which the specter of Vietnam hovers over many of his works).
Spielberg sounds like a producer to me. They hover, they interfere, but they’re not really doing the actual work and homework.
Spielberg was doing full-on second unit on “Goonies.” If you look up the scenes they say he shot and then watch them, you can see they are unmistakably him.
@bobcalahan there are also two productions that seem to influence POLTERGEIST. One is an episode called The New House from the series Ghost Story from William Castle. A ghost wants to possess a newborn baby after newlyweds have moved in. It's also written by Richard Matheson.
I've thought for some time that the Italian horror movie BEYOND THE DOOR was also an influence. The way the kids are so bratty, the pop art like commercial products, and how rambunctious to action is with items and debris blowing around. Maybe a stretch, but then again.
Also, could an overworked Spielberg in 1981 lead to a lack of supervision of THE TWILIGHT ZONE in 1982?
Perhaps. He also must’ve been very busy promoting “E.T.” Such a tragic production.
Very interesting. Never heard of William Castle’s Ghost Story! I would say “Poltergeist” also is heavily indebted to “The Amityville Horror,” which beats it to the “family rushes out of the house while it tries to stop them” finale.
I saw your Blade Runner 2049 video. I found many of your points valid and wasn't entirely happy with the choices of the director Ridley Scott had abdicated to. Maybe you could do the same thing with the Prometheus movies.
Poltergeist is a good movie. It is scary at that. The story was written by Steven Spielberg. Toby Hooper as the director. Hooper is a great director. The Texas chainsaw massacre. Spielberg made Jaws And ET. The two together. Gave us poltergeist. 👻💀
Im 100 percent that the kid touching the screen in Poltergeist is a paralel of 2001 monolith, cant be ignored
Interesting video but Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1974 is Tobe Hooper's masterwork one of the greatest not only of Horror cinema but all cinema . Poltergeist is a really good film but no masterpiece Texas Chainsaw is .
They're both great films. I hold Poltergeist higher for the craftsmanship and quite a few hidden themes critics have never talked about. TCSM is conceptually great but looks cheap as hell. Not that it needs to look slick. The remake was awful.
A person could perhaps conclude that part of Tobe Hooper's payment for his duties on this film was a directing credit,and Spielberg's tutelage,and Spielberg got to bask in the use of Hooper's name value on a horror movie.
Been looking back at a behind the scenes short film of Poltergeist just now (it is called The Making of Poltergeist (1982) here on YT). I think this might be what John Baxter was referring to. The video very clearly shows Spielberg having had a heavy hand on set, and I think that's Spielberg as well at 1:00 to 1:09 with a bit of stubble making some kind of gesture to the actors. Looking at photos of Hooper and Spielberg, Hooper's hairdo was very flat while Spielberg's hairdo back then was quite bushy, and Spielberg sometimes wore a beard publicly back in the early 1980's. So this looks like Spielberg to me.
Few other things to say.
--- As a couple of other people say here in comments, George Lucas who was a friend of Spielberg's did a similar thing with Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Although the hired directors did their jobs (and we could say Kirshner did some heavy lifting for getting the best out of the actors in direction), Lucas was ultimately the creative mastermind of the films (even Kirshner said this too).
--- Lifeforce, no, that is not proof that Hooper directed Poltergeist which came out before Lifeforce. I only saw it once, it was alright, but I remember the direction of the actors wasn't really good at all, unlike Poltergeist, and the camerawork was nowhere as finely crafted and unusual as that of Poltergeist.
--- And for those who hate Spielberg for ghost directing Poltergeist, which lowered Hooper's reputation upon public awareness. Well, imo, it's of no consequence considering how extremely well made and well executed Poltergeist is as a very enjoyable horror film, and it did boost Hooper's opportunities on paper which gave him the clout to make more big budget films (unfortunately, his later films weren't as good as his earlier films). From what I saw, no harm was done on the film shoot, so I don't have much gripes for either Spielberg or Hooper for engaging in this deception. That's me saying in retrospect.
While I have a (much) higher opinion of *Lifeforce,* be it overall or the quality of the acting, I can say that you can definitely tell that the events and making of *Poltergeist* definitely had an influence on his style and pacing/editing.
Hoppers later films are great. 1 or 2 that are not because they are straight to dvd productions but everything else is great. He was an artist. He made personal films. They are complete opposite of what Spielberg does. And Hooper did direct Poltergeist. It’s clear if you watch everything he did and everything Spielberg did.
The difference between Lucas with Marquand and Kushner and Spielberg and Hooper is that Hooper and Spielberg collaborated on the story together, such that at least 50% of the ideas in Poltergeist are Hooper’s himself.
Re: the behind the scenes short film, whenever you see a shot of the soundstage during the film’s initial principle photography, 100% of the time if a director is shown, you will see Hooper, not Spielberg. The scene you speak of is actually a reshoot scene. In the script, the scene outside the house when the family is shown packing a moving truck does not exist in the screenplay. In fact, three scenes were wholly rewritten in the midst of production, including that scene (which points to Hooper’s disruptive methods - the equivalent scene in the script is a quirky, funny dinner scene, something that did not fit into Hooper’s tonal conceptions), and they likely didn’t have time to film that replacement scene before wrapping in August of 1980. If you watch that scene in the film, you’ll notice Craig T. Nelson has a noticeably different hair style.
Do you think this film as a concept inspired Kubrick to do the "stunt" with A.I and Spielberg?
Based on everything that I've seen about this controversy, it seems to me that, as Tobe Hooper made his movie, Spielberg was right behind to remake that movie into His movie.
Far more evidence that Hooper constantly reinterpreted and revised the film Spielberg would have made. Three rewrites occurred mid-production, changing drastically Spielberg’s own dialogue and tone. Scenes like the hallway stretching were added in. Hooper was known for reimagining material as he made them. If Spielberg was on set trying to exert a stylistic influence (and many actors have since come out claiming his presence was not as constant as claimed), it would have been in the typical way producers do so while directors try their best to make the film cohere in their own head while begrudgingly taking their producer’s notes. But if there was anyone putting the film together, making it work in the end, it was Hooper.
The first Michael Bay Transformers film seemed to have Spielberg’s hands on it in certain scenes but it’s definitely a stretch to ever say Bay would have let anyone else direct any part of any of his films.
storyboarding isn't directing. a few accounts of him being on set...okay, was he directing? did he direct the movie? you have no case here and it's honestly pretty weird that you're arguing this.
Storyboarding IS a component of directing. I've been on sets as cinematographer where I virtually ended up directing other guys films and all they did was shout action and cut. It's not just a case of a few accounts of him being on set. Several have reported him as being THE director. And there's photos of him directing on set. It's weird that you're some desperate to deny it, despite the content of the film itself being very clearly Spielbergian in concept and execution.
I literally only watched the first couple minutes and then felt like trolling. Sorry, but this is funny. @@collativelearning
No, really, sorry. That was childish. But hey, the only thing that matters is if you fully understood Momento. Did you? Did you get the whole thing with his wife? (I bet you missed it) @@collativelearning
@@decalfacilitators463 I disagree with your outline there. It mismatches the evidence outlined in the vid. Especially the look, themes and feel of the film are very definitely Spielberg, as extensively detailed in the vid.
As many do, you seem to have a general set of wrong assumptions about Spielberg. What on Earth would make you think he wasn't capable of improv or small scale production with changes happening on the fly? Read the production histories of Duel, Raiders of the Lost Ark (shot in a mere six weeks) etc. Spielberg often worked very fast on the fly in those early days.
If you feel strongly that it's a Hooper film, please feel free to make a video :)
Don't avoid the question. Did Nolan put it over your head? lol (watch it again and tell me what the whole thing was about with the dead wife)@@collativelearning
Poltergeist definitely has Spielberg’s vibe throughout the whole movie. It fits completely with his American cul de sac living experience that he incorporates in many of his films. It’s kind of odd to see Tobe Hooper as director of it in the credits. Especially, after seeing Texas “Chainsaw Massacre 2” and “Funhouse”. I always felt Hooper was style “gritty” and Spielberg was more “polished”. Poltergeist to me is like the E.T. of horror movies. Almost the same feel as E.T.
There’s a bit of a frigidness to “Poltergeist.” “E.T.” is full of teary-eyed close-ups, Poltergeist essentially studies its characters like they’re through an aquarium glass. It’s an interesting journeyman work of someone working within a completely different system, like the hard-boiled Richard Fleischer making 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or Guy Ritchie making Aladdin lol.
@@bobcalahan true. I always felt the chemistry of the parents gave the movie a little heart though.
The part where they’re getting high in the bed!!!! They look like a real couple unwinding. I think in my mind somewhere I think they’re a real mom and dad living in Cuesta Verde (as if it’s a real development) 😂. That movie is burned into my psyche big time!
Then... watch Salem's Lot, where Tobe Hooper used a more "classic" style, and you can see more similarities.
@@tonk82 def will check that out. I do consider him one of horror’s genius’.
Also, 327 crops up in Empire Strikes Back a few times, seems like those numbers are a bunch of in jokes between all these guys.
Bullets & Blockbusters, in the video "Inside E.T.'s Horror Sequel and Spielberg's Lost Movies" from December 2023 just comes out and says "it's worth pointing out that Spielberg allegedly ghost-directed Poltergeist" like it's common knowledge. It happens at 11:20.
A rumor that has stubbornly persisted due to people's attachment to Spielberg, despite several actors outright stating Spielberg's presence was spotty at best from their perspective being directed for scenes.
I think the movie Hook has some father son relationship problems which was directed and written by Spielberg
If you watch Poltergeist and E.T. they are very similar in terms of visuals....its filmed LIKE an 80s Spielberg film. The settings are almost the same in both films. the themes and music, childlike cinematic ideas that Spielberg included in his early 80s films.
Totally wrong as they look nothing alike
@@TonyTheLoneRiderSmith
Well, I mean their visually similar lighting and props on set.
Also,
One has an alien one has ghosts I don't mean their EXACTLY THE SAME.
@@schwarz92 Yeah half of the 80s had similar looking lighting.
Did the same thing happen with the score? I always felt it was really John Williams, rather than Jerry Goldsmith?
The score is def Goldsmith, it incorporates some elements from his score for Star Trek TMP.
That hand coming out the tv was so simialr to when the spirits start to seep out of the ark
ILM did both effects, so it makes sense. Plus it’s written in both scripts (although in Raider’s original script, it was just supposed to be a brilliant light). Let’s just say ideas of the supernatural were very homogenized in that point of time, like they are now (how many different movies by different directors present ghosts in the same “Insidious”/James Wan-esque way? I will tell you the ghost coming down a staircase in “Poltergeist” was not written by Spielberg that way, he wrote it as tendrils of ectoplasm that “play” around the people - much in the same way the ghosts play around the soldiers in the Ark sequence. It was probably Tobe Hooper who wanted a much more classical ghost, resulting in the female ghost form that is very similar to the design of the ghost in the 1944 movie “The Uninvited.”
I was shocked when i first saw the movie; i thought it was directed by Steven Spielberg.
I didn't know Tobe Hooper even though i saw Texas Chainsaw before Poltergeist came out.
The look of the film screamed Spielberg...
I never knew then who made Chainsaw, but it is probably the most frightening movie i ever saw.
I believe they advertised it to be based on true events.
As a kid in the 80s, the films that actually made me scared were: Chainsaw, Exorcist, and Halloween.
But today, Eyes Wide Shut, AI, The Most Dangerous Game, 8mm, and Hostel. There is more but they stand out.
Why?
They are, in fact, fictionalized accounts of the elite...
A psuedo documentary if you will.
YeHoVaH states:
The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? I, YeHoVaH, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.
As an adult, the desperately wicked heart is truly the most horrific monster of them all...
Michael, the Chainsaw killer, and a demon possessed gorl has nothing on men who have unlimited wealth and power at their disposal...
Frightening... very frightening...
I think you knew the negative comments you would get, and I love that you made the video and especially titled it this anyway; People telling you to "shut up" and shit. lol.
I admit to not knowing Tobe's work very well, so I'm going to be diving in shortly. I do know Spielberg though, and I agree it certainly feels like his. It's a special film for me from childhood, up there with ET and Close Encounters. I guess once I get a better feel for Tobe, my intuition will be confirmed or not.
@@decalfacilitators463 I'll try to start with Eggshells.
I'm not saying anything about what "we" should do. I don't care what you do. I can gather the information and analyze it myself with my integrated intuition, which is what we're left with, never actually having ALL the facts. All I have at this moment is what I "feel". But I'm able to objectively gather the facts available and make a decision, which, like I admitted, I can't do yet because I don't know his work well enough.
@@decalfacilitators463 I imagine Rob has thought about this for a long long time. I can't say he's right. I just like that he put his foot down and declared his view.
I’m a fan of neither but Iv seen both filmographies and it’s Hoopers film. It has a producers touch but I’d say authorship goes to Hooper. I think to continuing spreading this bullshit myth is sad. I don’t much like Spielbergs work but I like Poltergeist because of the Hooper touch Iv come to find. If Spielbergs filmography disappeared tomorrow then I wouldn’t care. I don’t think it be a loss to cinema but someone like Hooper, who I’m not a great fan of, but if his work was to disappear then it would be a great loss to cinema. All that matters is the personal touch of the artist and I don’t just mean themes like my mother divorced my father or stamped brands throughout to indicate this is a so and so film. Some filmmakers can put their heart and souls into a work. Hopper was a filmmaker capable of that.
It definitely has Spielberg elements in the film. I mean no shit, he produced stuff like Gremlins and Goonies, which definitely have a Spielberg vibe, despite the fact that Gremlins is definitely Joe Dante's baby, although I'm not sure about the Goonies. I doubt he directed the Goonies as that movie is not on the level of Spielberg's quality imo. But there's stuff like performances, cinematography, dialogue etc. that feel way more like a 80s Hooper movie than a Spielberg movie. But it does have Spielberg elements, and most of them were pointed out in the video (except the Kubrick stuff, that is a stretch). So I understand someone not familiar with Hooper's 80s stuff might see it as Spielberg's hand.
Now do one about how Stanley Kubrick actually directed "Being There"
I don't think he did, but a lot of the inspirations from Kubrick were there. Peter Sellers no doubt would have told Ashby stories of Kubrick and Strangelove.
I've heard that one before. The film does feel incredibly Kubrickian. I suspect Kubrick may have had some contact with Hal Ashby during production. Weird thing is there is evidence Kubrick occasionally did secret work on other films. He rigged all the lighting for a ship interior set on a Bond film on the condition his involvement be kept secret and all other unnecessary crew be removed on the day. In the following years the Bond team made Moonraker, which was heavily inspired by 2001 and Dr Strangelove.
@@collativelearning Kubrick made the lighting for the U-boat base inside a ship-set at a request from production designer Ken Adam, most famous from the Bond franchise and the films of Kubrick. Apparently, Adam lost out on designing "From Russia with Love" as he was working on "Dr Strangelove" for Kubrick, and when he encountered a problem with lighting up the giant set for "The Spy who loved me" he simply phoned Kubrick up for a You Owe Me. The reason Kubrick did it in secret was that he considered it a personal favour to Ken Adam, and didn't want anyone to question Adams credit for the film. It's a neat story of professional admirations and personal friendships.
@@ingvarhallstrom2306 Interesting expansion. Where did you source that from? curious.
@@robag555 I read it quite recently in an interview, I'll look it up and post it here later.
Come on, man. Hooper directed it and its really fucked up to continue to propagate this rumor - especially after Hooper's death.
Tobe Hooper directed Poltergeist. Donner directed Goonies. Dante directed Gremlins.
That's not even an argument. You're ignoring the evidence. I'm not interested in what you want to be true.
@robag555 I don't think it's worth arguing about. Spielberg was heavily involved, of course. Lots of producers are heavy handed and influence the overall film. But Spielberg himself closed the book on this when he stated Tobe Hooper was the director of Poltergeist.
Tobe Hooper is a great director and probably directed the actors and the action. However, some scenes look like Spielberg directed them, but they may have been Hooper doing his best version of Spielberg. A couple of scenes in the middle of the picture had a certain emotional quality, and the signature one-take with the blocking of characters moving in and out of the front of the frame. I'm talking about Zelda's monologue: ua-cam.com/video/GQGe1IYq6bk/v-deo.html. And then this scene: ua-cam.com/video/h_nLiys-TqY/v-deo.html
Interesting facts: Zelda’s monologue was a late addition to the film, and has in fact never been part of a published screenplay! It’s existence is a mystery. That said, Hooper was a noted Jungian, and that monologue is weird enough to be his doing.
Also, the long one-take shot in the upstairs hallway may have Spielberg’s showmanship, but it has Hooper’s execution, as it uses the markers of the landscape (a painting, the wall mounding) and geography of the hallway to create an oppressive psychological space around the characters. This is Hooper’s trademark to a T! It was also written - in Spielberg’s script - as a mere reiteration of the first contact scene taking place in the downstairs living room. Someone switched it to the upstairs hallway, perhaps to foster intensity - that is Hooper’s MO, also.
@@bobcalahan thank you for the insight fellow movie nerd!
Why is anyone surprised at this? Spielberg was the producer and he obviously had doubts about Tobe's on-set ability to direct certain scenes that Spielberg wanted done his way so he did those scenes himself. The Directors Guild could have gotten involved if Hooper had written a formal protest letter but Tobe was smart enough to realize that would be career suicide. The movie is still scary 40 years later so they did things right in making it.
There’s more evidence that Hooper got away with directing things in his unorthodox, improvisation-heavy approach. There’s a reason the film doesn’t feel like a comic book or action film, and its reputation is based on how strange and freaky it is, not how exciting and sensical it is.
The DGA did get involved, after Hooper had finished the movie and realized the press and studio was trying to undermine his credit. He sued MGM and Spielberg and got a little settlement out of it.
@@bobcalahan Oh I never knew he went to the Guild to complain that makes it a serious matter they have to rule on it but since Tobe got the Directed By credit there's nothing the Guild could do they don't control the studio's publicity machine and the studio had the right to sell the movie on Spielberg's Valuable Name as Producer more than Hooper's not nearly as valuable name as Director.
@@moviesgalore9947Yeah… I’m not sure what they got the studio on. Hooper apparently lodged “greater issues” against the producers and studio, but settled for the seeming infraction of putting Spielberg’s name in bigger font than Hooper’s on the trailer - which is I guess in the guild laws lol because that’s what they officially apologized for.
@@bobcalahan MGM did the smart thing they had to play up Spielberg in advertising it - "From Producer Steven Spielberg" - that was free money they knew fans would line up to see that in a theater. Hooper should have told Spielberg "if you want to direct this yourself then I should quit or you should fire me because you being on set and directing scenes tells the crew you don't need me so what am I doing here? why did you hire me for this?" - if Tobe had done that Spielberg would have realized he has to fire Tobe and direct it himself or he has to get lost and let Tobe direct the movie. That's what I would have done if I were Hooper in that situation.
@@moviesgalore9947 It's true selling the film on Spielberg's name was absolutely the way to maximize profits.
But apparently Hooper did set some boundaries, and Beatrice Straight helped him. The second day of soundstage shooting, Beatrice Straight had to tell Spielberg it was too confusing having him give instructions when Hooper was also giving them. "From then on, Tobe did everything," as one actor put it.
It always felt like a Spielberg film to me.
Well, he wrote the film. Spielberg would’ve included a “scared to brave” arc for a one-liner-giving ten-year-old boy, pratfalls, and tennis ball slapstick. Hooper took all that out and made something a bit more classical and unsentimental. There isn’t a moment as silly as Richard Dreyfuss in Close Encounters making the mountain shape out of shaving cream. In the original Poltergeist script, the dad looks out over the neighborhood on the hill and says sentimentally, “When they built our model home, there was nothing down there. Just freshly turned earth and a lotta wooden stakes and miles and miles of string.” Hooper took out the cheese.
@@bobcalahan im not an expert on Hooper at all and i only know his work from texas chain saw.
That makes sense though, Spielberg alone might have made it too comical. The final movie has a good balance to it. Would you recommend a Hooper movie plz
@@RM-306 Yeah, check out Salem’s Lot, Lifeforce, and Toolbox Murders as a survey of his range.
@@RM-306I like The Mangler. Spontaneous Combustion is fun.
@@curiositytax9360 is it! Hahaha Ill check it out.
Yeah, I know this for a fact. As a to-be-nameless mentor of mine was running that set everyday. Yes, one of the necessary mucky mucks. One that make a difference.
When I asked him, while doing my job on another film in the mid-80's --
"What did you think of Tobe Hooper from your work on 'POLTERGEIST' ..?
HIS REPLY ... has stuck with me for nearly four decades:
"Tobe Hooper is a non-sequitur."
I had to look it up later back at the hotel and it's not good.
D.A.
Shock of shocks, an unwritten rule of Hollywood ... is one keeps up the myth of the above the line people. Privately, we dish. Publicly, you don't. It is the way it is.
To quote, Roy Batty .... 'The things I have seen with your eyes ...'@@decalfacilitators463
Poltergeist is such an underrated gem! So: wait, Tobe Hooper went through some notes by Robert Wise and used them to pitch Poltergeist?!? Was Wise upset by this?? or am I misunderstanding? (The Haunting is another film I’d love to see you cover). Tobe Hooper also directed the pilot for the Spielberg produced ‘Taken’: think Spielberg might’ve ghost directed this as well? 😁 I also have always felt that Spielberg and Lucas genre movies either work or they don’t depending on whether or not they contain what I call The Midget Lady Speech , as depicted in this film. Poltergeist is essentially a bunch of scenes strung together until Tangina shows up and explains just enough of the macguffin for the story to continue and raising the stakes in the process. In Star Wars it’s when Ben Kenobi explains the force to Luke, in Raiders it’s when Indy discusses the Ark and opens the Bible, in Jaws it’s when Quint gets involved. I’ve always argued that Phantom Menace and Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull would have worked if they’d understood and included scenes of this type, and to me the omission was glaring. The midichlorians scene in Phantom was a failed attempt, but where it should have been was the beat where Obi Wan, Qui Gon and Darth Mail are all trapped momentarily by the lasers during the final battle. I remember thinking ‘okay here it comes!’ And was flabbergasted that that moment was completely wasted.
Hooper moved into Robert Wise’s office when he got a development deal at Universal. It was there he found Wise’s copy of a book titled POLTERGEIST: FACT OR FANCY by Sacheverell Sitwell that Wise likely used to research for “The Haunting,” one of Hooper’s favorite horror films. It was at that point Hooper started mulling bringing the old-fashioned ghost/haunted house film to a modern setting.
His best movies are Texas Chainsaw, and Salem's Lot, so it really doesn't matter.
Hey Rob you should play Soma. It's a really effective horror narrative on transhumanism. I think you could make a really interesting analysis of it. I commented this on another video awhile ago but it was a bit older.
A lot of people have recommended that. Busy designing my own game at the moment though :)
To add more fuel to the fire, “Poltergeist” showcased groundbreaking special effects. Other than an 8-minute behind-the-scenes featurette included on Laserdisc and the fairly recent 4K remaster, there suspiciously haven’t been any noteworthy extra features for home video releases. Why? Even terrible horror movies have gotten proper retrospectives. If you watch the featurette, Spielberg set up shots and special effects. He was no mere producer; he was the director.
And? Supposedly Kubrick set up the lights for the Well of Souls scene in Raiders does that mean he directed it?
I can see Hooper being the director. But a film is molded in the editing room. If Spielberg had greater editing leeway, then it would end up looking like his style by default. Which is what probably happened.
Let's just say Tobe Hooper directed the film and Steven Spielberg directed Tobe Hooper.
So Spielberg produced it?
You people must be tons of fun at parties?
@@decalfacilitators463 I was just trying to be funny, but good luck with that!
Everything you attribute to Spielberg can be accounted for in the script, it doesn't follow he was actually directing. Comparing filmographies sounds a bit like comparing Shakespeare to the Earl of Oxford.
Duh, footage and pics of him on set directing. Watch the video.
So what? You are wrong duh. Tobe Hooper was a great director. Iv come to find this watching his films. He directed Poltergeist for certain. If Spielbergs films disappeared tomorrow then it wouldn’t matter but if Hoopers disappeared then it would be a great loss to cinema. For me, cinema is art and Hooper was obviously an artist. He had that personal touch. He wasn’t selling a brand.
Just found this channel , I subscribe to collative learning a big fan Rob.
I’ve heard this story for years, and felt it to be true, but not in exhaustive compelling detail, thanks for all the great work.
The second unit raiders truck sequence was storyboarded by Dave Stevens(the comic creator of the rocketeer ) and Joe Johnston (the director of the rocketeer) under the direction of Spielberg. I wonder if they had some contributions to poltergeist.
A similar story to this one is Val Kilmer’s revelation a few years after the credited director passed, that Kurt Russell actually directed Tombstone.
I saw your recent post about the algorithm- very frustrating. You’re definitely a favourite UA-camr.
I wish you well with your endeavours, you’ve added so much nuance and enjoyment to my favourite films.
The microlith teaching device of my iPhone has enlightened this grateful ape.
Those storyboard artists definitely did not. Someone who did work on RAIDERS, though, was artist Ron Cobb, whose contributions “suggesting shots and compositions” for RAIDERS encouraged Spielberg to offer him the job directing his proposed CLOSE ENCOUNTERS sequel “Night Skies,” which Spielberg initially offered to Tobe Hooper!
Hooper was a filmmaker, though, who had professed he disliked working with storyboards. That was the main learning curve for him on POLTERGEIST, learning that storyboards had to be done for the major effects and stunt work scenes for the mere purposes of budget management. He and Spielberg worked with artist Richard Lasley to storyboard the biggest effects scenes, while Hooper worked with artist Carl Aldana on smaller scenes. This, of course, didn’t stop Hooper from largely ignoring storyboards. One major scene is so different from the previz that it almost suggests why so many people on the set seemed to have perceived turmoil (and likely grown biases against Hooper from there).
From what I heard he was very taken with the actress on the poster... if you know what I mean. I guess he just had to be a part of this project.
Spielberg directed all the special fx in poltergeist while Hooper mainly focused on the family interactions and the slow build up of character tension as he did with Texas chainsaw and Salems lot which is why Spielberg brought him onboard as the obvious choice at that time as Spielberg maintaining his image branding as the more familyl clean cut mainstream studio box office director taking a chance on the horror genre knew he couldnt be on set all the time while making ET Im going to be honest and say I much prefer Tobe as his Life Force movie was in my top 5 growing up with Salems Lot the best tv movie ever made!
Plus, Hooper pitched the very idea to Spielberg - he only 1) helped develop the story and 2) stood right alongside Spielberg as Spielberg wrote the final shooting script from scratch, because he was the one who was attached to direct.
This video is bullshit but I’m not surprised. Iv seen a few videos from this channel and the information being relayed is mostly absolute bollocks. The analysis of some of the Kubrick stuff is nonsense. Over analysis.
Iv seen most of Hoopers films and most of Spielbergs and to attribute Poltergeist to Spielberg is just bullshit. Iv come to find watching Hoopers films that he was a really great director and an auteur.
After watching films for many years, iv honestly reached a point in which if Spielbergs entire filmography was deleted tomorrow then I just wouldn’t care. It wouldn’t be a loss to cinema. If Hoopers was to disappear then it would a tragedy and an incredible loss to cinema. That’s my point of view.
Sad to see this lie still being spread.
We can debate forever who directed the movie, there is no doubt that Spielberg produced the hell out of the film, leaving little creative freedom for anyone else. Due to a Directors Guild stipulation that a producer isn't allowed to replace a director with themselves, if Spielberg did direct the film, he will never admit to it. Yes he had the exclusive Universal contract at the time, but that wouldn't be an issue now, as opposed to the Guild would have revoked (and could still) revoke his membership. I think this was a co-directed film but with Steven being such a perfectionist and likely at the time too controlling of his work, that he couldn't just leave Tobe to do his thing.
Or Spielberg was constantly vexed by Hooper’s out-of-the-box methods, as evinced by the three mid-production rewrites that, in a heavily producer-controlled movie (especially when the producer was the writer!), should not have happened. Hooper was not simply going to film the movie according to the dotted pattern. There’s much more evidence for that than there is that Hooper was ever thought of by people on the set as effectively “replaced.” The DGA rule about producers replacing directors had been an issue for years, from JAWS 2 to OUTLAW JOSEY WALES to George Lucas micromanaging his Star Wars sets, but it had little to do with the turmoil of the POLTERGEIST set, which had Spielberg lamenting, “The turmoil [of producing] is wanting to do things your way but having to go through procedure. That is why I’ll never again not direct a film I write.” I think the story is way more complex than simply being The Spielberg Show-but-we-can’t-acknowledge-it (acknowledging Spielberg’s influence has been all anyone has wanted to talk about since the film’s release, and considering how much Spielberg talked about it and how cruelly Hooper was left out of the promotion, I don’t think there was any “secrets” they actually wanted to hide from any guilds or organizations).
@@bobcalahan There was though. Spielberg largley admitted in an article in the LA Times that he directed the film. He retracted that statement in an open letter in Variety. He did so at the behest of the DGA after the LA Times article prompted an investigation.
Not saying there isn't more to it, but the DGA was a big reason why Spielberg would never admit anything, as he almost did and got done in by the DGA for it.
@@flagler88 Nah, that LA Times article and its various quotes came out in response to the DGA investigation, it did not cause it. Spielberg was well on his way to making an embarrassing apology and was simply trying to explain why the press might possibly misinterpret the set. Hooper was already quite upset about how his role was represented before the LA Times article came out, like how MGM was deliberately keeping journalists away from him so he couldn’t give interviews about the film.
George Lucas did this with Episode 5 and 6. No wonder Spielberg would do the same.
In neither the George Lucas case did the director originate the concepts and ideas... and Hooper helped Spielberg develop the story and even finalized the shooting script after the work of the two other screenwriters' was evaluated (Spielberg and Hooper decided to rewrite).
@@BentonAllOn Star Wars is all George Lucas. The detractors are just coping. And coping hard
Apparently the skeleton 💀 and skulls was real on film and theories film was cursed
I've been maintaining for decades that Spielberg 100% directed the film. It has every single one of his signature styles, and if you asked a random fan of both Tobe Hooper and Spielberg's that had never seen Poltergeist they would tell you that obviously it was a Spielberg film
Absolutely. I watched the film with a friend about two years ago who'd never seen it and he said he could see Spielberg's imprint on it in every scene. Even as a kid when I knew nothing about the film's production I always assumed Spielberg had directed because looked and flowed just like his work.
@@collativelearning And if I didn't know any better I would say that Goonies, Gremlins and Back to the Future were directed by Spielberg.
It always felt like a Spielberg movie
In a similar sense, there is talk that George Lucas had Richard Marquand as puppet director of Return of the Jedi.
Very much the case. And similar thing with Empire Strikes Back, even though Irvin Kershner was a good director, Lucas had a heavy hand in scripting the film, managing shoots, visiting the sets, and sometimes directing the director.
@@moviearchaeologist9655I read that one of the reasons Lucas wanted a “beard director” (“beard” being a dating term) was because Gary Kurtz and Irwin Kurschner were all but shunning/locking Lucas out of the directing/editing process and made their own thing. He didn’t like being the third wheel in his own house, so he made sure with *Jedi* that he would have as close to absolute control as possible. It’s also one of the reasons Kurtz left/was kicked out.
I still feel that Prowse should have been Anakin in the mask reveal, as opposed to Sebastian Shaw.
@@TheRealNormanBates I know you aren't implying this, but I feel like people feel this need to discredit all of the work Lucas did on the original trilogy, and saying he didn't have input in Empire Strikes Back is one of them, although you could be right, as the evidence supports that he was least involved in that movie compared to the other entries in the trilogy. Although I find it strange that people act like Irvin Kurschner deserves credit as his filmography is way less notable than Lucas's filmography.
I know Stephen got into trouble from producers for spending too much time over on the poltergeist set instead of being on the color purple I think it was.
It was “E.T.” he was readying to shoot a month after “Poltergeist” wrapped. When the rumors of his involvement started circulating in the press, Tobe Hooper sent a letter to an LA newspaper trying to clear up Spielberg’s involvement as that of a mere producer. Hooper was then reprimanded for sending the letter and to cease any correspondence with the press as it would apparently put into jeopardy Spielberg’s contract with Universal for “E.T.” Apparently they didn’t like the idea there would be two Spielberg productions competing against each other and Spielberg was afraid they’d pull the funding. This is all according to film journalist/TV host Joe Bob Briggs. Hooper was merely caught in the crossfire of Spielberg’s messy deals.
@@bobcalahan thanks for setting the record straight on this.
I'd say - Hooper was there to see the Day to Day as well as he had a lot of input on specific scenes, but we all know that Spielberg was there for the really Big story elements as well as the Polished look to the Film...
I always thought steak-face looked a lot like Cronenberg.
It was Hooper who directed Spielberg’s ideas. So of course the film has an odd amalgamation of style. To me it has Hooper’s style in almost all the scenes. In my opinion all the hokey cringey scenes in the film were directed by Spielberg. He had and still has an awful habit of going Hallmark but a bad Hallmark. Hallmark as if hallmark didn’t believe in Hallmark.