sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (06/14/85)
Gee, am I the only one who liked Goonies? I thought it was Great! It wasn't
intellectual, but it was funny, and it was great adventure. It was escape!
I just had to say that, even though I'm outnumbered.
--
- Sean Casey UUCP: {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean
- Department of Mathematics ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
- University of Kentuckysas@leadsv.UUCP (Scott Stewart) (06/14/85)
A lot of reviews and comments have been written about this movie. One thing that seems apparent in may of them, is that no distinction is made between Spielberg's role of Producer and Story originator, Donner's role as director, and Columbus's role as script writer. Most criticism (sp?) seems directed at Spielberg, but I feel this it is very unfair to blame him for the Director's decisions or Screenplay flaws. Come on, let's give credit to were credit due. Sure, he has to be ultimately responsible, but the man can't just come in as Producer and tell the Director what to do or undermine the Director's decisions. There is a line of command and responsibility. Just because Spielberg's name on it, don't think the guy did everything. Scott A. Stewart LMSC
sob@neuro1.UUCP (Stan Barber) (06/17/85)
Well, I know this is probably late, but I just had to write a little about GOONIES, the latest release from Steven Spielberg's Amblin productions. It was FUN! It struck me in the same way E.T. did with respect to the characterization of the young people. Very believable, even painfully so. Not exactly how Walt Disney would do it (a few interesting references to excrement, and the first adolescent attempts at heterosexual relationships), but somewhat realistic. There was also the outstanding work (as usual) by ILM. Again, this was more of the ILM-type stuff seen in Indiana Jones than in Star Wars and Star Trek. Having seen the Pixel computer from LucasFilm, I now wonder how much was "real" (i.e. constructed) and how much was made by the Pixel. In short, (notice no spoiler !!) I would suggest this film for kids from 8 and beyond, but certainly not for those younger. A bit explicit and violent for them I think, but if they watch the A-Team and The Best Times, then they can see this without any problem. Stan Barber
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/17/85)
Well, I haven't seen Goonies yet either, but, two of the kids have. One is seven and the other is 15. They both enjoyed the film very much. The 15-year old remarked that those who are panning the film are looking at it from the wrong perspective. They should see it from a kids point of view. After all, that is who the movie is aimed for. Every movie does not have to have an intellectual message buried in the plot. Movies can be just for the fun of it. And, since every kid I have talked to concerning the movie has given it an A+ rating, Spielberg has hit the mark again. T. C. Wheeler
boren@randvax.UUCP (Pat Boren) (06/20/85)
Hey, I really liked Goonies! It was plain simple fun. Yes, it was Disneyish and made for kids, but so what? I go to the movies for entertainment, and this one definitely entertained me. (Maybe I'm strange because I don't need all sorts of social messages and great significances from the movies, just an enjoyable evening.) I think this is a good movie for kids. It's "scary" in a fun way without grossing anyone out. I went with a 6 year old to Raiders of the Lost Ark when it first came out -- he was excited about seeing "Hans Solo". Right after the movie ended, I asked him how he liked it, and he said "I think I'm going to be sick." So how's that for "good" entertainment? (We saw Raiders right after it opened, so we hadn't heard a thing about it maybe being a little too much for a young kid. Yes, I liked Raiders.) Anyway, Goonies is fun. Be a kid again and see it from that perspective. -- Patricia Boren decvax!randvax!boren boren@rand-unix.arpa
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (06/23/85)
In article <1279@pyuxa.UUCP> wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) writes: >Well, I haven't seen Goonies yet either, but, two of the >kids have. One is seven and the other is 15. They both >enjoyed the film very much. The 15-year old remarked that >those who are panning the film are looking at it from the >wrong perspective. They should see it from a kids point >of view. After all, that is who the movie is aimed for. >Every movie does not have to have an intellectual message >buried in the plot. Movies can be just for the fun of it. >And, since every kid I have talked to concerning the movie >has given it an A+ rating, Spielberg has hit the mark again. I agree! I'm a kid (a 23 year old one) and I enjoyed it very much! If you go in and just let go for a couple of hours, I think you'll enjoy Goonies as much as I did. It's fun! -- - Sean Casey UUCP: {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean - Department of Mathematics ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA - University of Kentucky
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/23/85)
In article <860@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > >For most producers this would be true and, in fact, Spielberg probably >should be given more of the benefit of the doubt in my review, >particularly. I will point out that when Spielberg produces he doesn't >leave it at just producing. The case in point was POLTERGEIST. >Nominally he was the producer and screenwriter. Tobe Hooper was >nominally the director. There is a persistant rumor that Spielberg >threw out everything Hooper did and directed the film himself. Later >he implied to reporters that he had done that, Hooper complained and >for the record Spielberg retracted the statement. It is widely assumed >that the rumor is true, however. Even when Spielberg only produces, he >retains a very tight control and the film is more a product of the >producer's vision than of the director's. The way I heard it, Hooper really was the director, but Speilberg hung around the set almost constantly, offering "advice" which was not quite instructions on how things should be done, but came close. Hooper apparently isn't the most assertive of men, so lots of what Speilberg suggested was done. I also heard that Speilberg alone actually shot some, but far from all, of "Poltergeist". It's not always true that Speilberg production credits are actually his films. Consider "Used Cars" and "Fandango". Other than the rumor that Speilberg helped out with the kids, because Richard Donner wasn't very good at directing children, I haven't heard of substantive Speilberg influence on "The Goonies" (well, his original story credit, too). Donner is an established director who has one of the biggest box office hits of all time to his credit ("Superman"), so I doubt if he'd let even Steven Speilberg boss him around. Chris Columbus, the screenwriter for "The Goonies", has stated that, beyond the story, the screenplay is his, without any substantial interference/contributions from Speilberg. My own assessment of Speilberg's major influence on "The Goonies" is that he contributed the original idea and the whole project was made with an eye towards falling into line with the Speilberg way of doing things. Since the idea is good (the execution, alas, is poor), I'd say that the lion's share of the blame goes to Donner and Columbus, with Speilberg getting the bulk of whatever remains. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa soon to be reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (06/25/85)
>A lot of reviews and comments have been written about this >movie. One thing that seems apparent in may of them, is >that no distinction is made between Spielberg's role of >Producer and Story originator, Donner's role as director, >and Columbus's role as script writer. Most criticism (sp?) >seems directed at Spielberg, but I feel this it is very >unfair to blame him for the Director's decisions or >Screenplay flaws. For most producers this would be true and, in fact, Spielberg probably should be given more of the benefit of the doubt in my review, particularly. I will point out that when Spielberg produces he doesn't leave it at just producing. The case in point was POLTERGEIST. Nominally he was the producer and screenwriter. Tobe Hooper was nominally the director. There is a persistant rumor that Spielberg threw out everything Hooper did and directed the film himself. Later he implied to reporters that he had done that, Hooper complained and for the record Spielberg retracted the statement. It is widely assumed that the rumor is true, however. Even when Spielberg only produces, he retains a very tight control and the film is more a product of the producer's vision than of the director's. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) (06/27/85)
In article <829@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > Spielberg is now rich and powerful enough that he doesn't have to >listen to anyone telling him that something is a dumb idea. Pity--he needs >it desperately. He continually undercuts the credibility of his story by >throwing in absurdities. In one scene,he has somebody shaking a waterpipe >somehow create a geyser to blow somebody off a toilet. The gag brought >giggles from a few of the eight-year-olds in the audience and for the rest >of us it looked pretty stupid. One of the kids is a walking bag of the >children's equivalent of James Bond gizmos. That's stupid right there. Yet >if you figure the total volume necessary for all that the kid is supposedly >wearing, there is no room in the clothing for the kid. The gizmos are used >with a Road-runner level of believability, too. Some other ridiculous things about the movie: o 300 year old ropes lying in the damp still will hold wait. o a 300 year old ship still floats, still has sails that hold air, etc. o the kid with all the gizmos reminded me of Batman with 'I just happened to have on my utility belt...'. o the kids seemed to be way out in the country in one scene, and under the city in the next, just by walking a few steps in the tunnels. o where did the power come from to operate the organ?
shprentz@bdmrrr.UUCP (Joel Shprentz) (06/30/85)
> Some other ridiculous things about the movie: > . > . > . > o where did the power come from to operate the organ? Better yet, where did the power come from to operate the booby traps in the tunnel? The same question could be asked about the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark. One requirement of exploring such tunnels is the discovery of the skeleton of some unfortunate previous explorer killed by the booby traps. How are the traps reset for our current heroes? -- Joel Shprentz (703) 827-7953 BDM Corporation {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!shprentz 7915 Jones Branch Drive McLean, Virginia 22102
goldman@umn-cs.UUCP (Matthew D. Goldman ) (07/02/85)
-------
I liked it, the people I saw it with (my SO and two adult type people) also
liked it, but then we are gamers...
--
-------
Matthew Goldman
Computer Science Department
University of Minnesota
...ihnp4{!stolaf}???!umn-cs!goldman
Home is where you take your hat off... Banzai!
Kyllara : What did you just do?
Moederan : I don't know but it's going to be fun...root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (07/02/85)
In article <311@bdmrrr.UUCP> shprentz@bdmrrr.UUCP (Joel Shprentz) writes: > > Better yet, where did the power come from to operate the booby traps in > the tunnel? The same question could be asked about the opening scene > of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Pyramid power. > One requirement of exploring such tunnels is the discovery of the > skeleton of some unfortunate previous explorer killed by the booby > traps. How are the traps reset for our current heroes? Easy... the traps were not reset. There were several of them, only one of which was already sprung on the unfortunate Chester Copperpot. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Money for you from the Buddah"
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (07/03/85)
>The way I heard it, Hooper really was the director, but >Speilberg hung around the set almost constantly, offering >"advice" which was not quite instructions on how things >should be done, but came close. Hooper apparently isn't the >most assertive of men, so lots of what Speilberg suggested >was done. I also heard that Speilberg alone actually shot >some, but far from all, of "Poltergeist". > There are apparently a wide range of rumors. I know that Spielberg did publically apologize to Hooper in Variety apparently for off-the-record comments he made to newsmen that he had done much of the directing. What actually happened is still in question. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
sas@leadsv.UUCP (Scott Stewart) (07/08/85)
In article <311@bdmrrr.UUCP>, shprentz@bdmrrr.UUCP (Joel Shprentz) writes: > > Some other ridiculous things about the movie: > > . > > . > > . > > o where did the power come from to operate the organ? > > Better yet, where did the power come from to operate the booby traps in > the tunnel? The same question could be asked about the opening scene > of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I have not seen Goonies yet, so I can't really say where the power for the organ came from, but remember, an organ does not neccesarily have to be powered by electricty. What about a pump organ? Secondly, traps could be power by simple mechanics. The traps in Raiders all appeared this way. (The proper balancing of weight on the idols stand prevented the boulder from being realeased, or putting weight(stepping) on certain stones causing darts to fire.) Except maybe the spikes that were triggered by blocking the light, which implies a photosensitive trigger. I believe that many Pyramids had similar style traps (sliding walls, etc.) > > One requirement of exploring such tunnels is the discovery of the > skeleton of some unfortunate previous explorer killed by the booby > traps. How are the traps reset for our current heroes? > Simple mechanics again. What about weights (rocks) attached to the trap device, connected over some pullys that eventually pull the trap back into place. Or what about a bucket device which sand or water is free to fill once the trap is sprung and enventually the weight is enough, again vai pullys, to reset the trap. Scott A. Stewart LMSC "Order is organized Chaos."
bytebug@pertec.UUCP (roger long) (07/09/85)
In article <688@dataio.UUCP> bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes: >Some other ridiculous things about the movie: > o 300 year old ropes lying in the damp still will hold wait. > o a 300 year old ship still floats, still has sails that hold > air, etc. > o the kid with all the gizmos reminded me of Batman with 'I just > happened to have on my utility belt...'. > o the kids seemed to be way out in the country in one scene, and > under the city in the next, just by walking a few steps in > the tunnels. > o where did the power come from to operate the organ? This criticism reminds me of the Spaceships-don't-make-sound-in-a-vacuum debate that accompanies some of the recent outer space adventures. Cool it guys. Some people actually go to the movies to relax and have a good time, and *not* grade the film on how close it follows the known physical laws of this universe! -- roger long pertec computer corp {ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (07/11/85)
>Cool it guys. Some people actually go to the movies to >relax and have a good time, and *not* grade the film on how >close it follows the known physical laws of this universe! True. And take it a step further. Some people seem to go to theaters to cause a ruckus and ignore the film, so why review at all? Logical inaccuracies are a fault with a film that bother many people and should be pointed out. If you don't care about them, fine. Ignore such criticisms. It is true that you can take it too far criticizing a film for VERY technical flaws, but the flaws you are talking about are not that technical and should be considered faults of the film. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) (07/13/85)
In article <346@pertec.UUCP> bytebug@pertec.UUCP (roger long) writes: >This criticism reminds me of the Spaceships-don't-make-sound-in-a-vacuum >debate that accompanies some of the recent outer space adventures. Cool >it guys. Some people actually go to the movies to relax and have a good >time, and *not* grade the film on how close it follows the known physical >laws of this universe! Goonies isn't a sci-fi/fantasy movie! It's a pirate/buried-treasure movie! Why they have to fill the movie with ridiculous absurdities is beyond me.