eric@whuxle.UUCP (Eric Holtman) (06/27/84)
GREMLINS *--IS--* SPIELBERG'S...... Sure, he may have had "next to nothing to do with it". RIGHT. He just put up the money, that's all. Nothing big. He just hung a couple a million out on the line..... Just because Dante directed the movie doesn't mean Spielberg just sent a check and said "send me a film box, with footage". Besides, my two local rags both say "--Spielberg's GREMLINS" So, all you Dante fans.... although he may have done some real work on this film, by no means did Stevie just sit on his ass, and so I still consider it SPIELBERG'S film. (Genetive case does imply possession, and since spielberg bought it, he certainly owns it, right??) "hi ho, hi ho" eric holtman harpo!whuxle!eric
dsmith@uiucuxc.UUCP (06/27/84)
#R:whuxle:-48100:uiucuxc:31100013:000:165 uiucuxc!dsmith Jun 27 11:07:00 1984 Last night (26 June) on the Tonight Show, Hoyt Axton said that Spielberg was not terribly involved in Gremlins, as he was off working on Indiana Jones at the time.
upstill@ucbvax.UUCP (Steve Upstill) (06/27/84)
Fa cryin out loud! Spielberg may be a movie magician, but I doubt his cosmic influence extends from London (where he was working on Indiana Jones) to LA (where Gremlins was shot at the same time). He bought the script. He raised the money (you think producers put up their OWN money to make a movie? You think SPIELBERG puts up his own money to make a movie, when every third person in Hollywood would sell his mother to get a piece of a Spielberg film? You want to buy a bridge?). He did not write it. He did not direct it. He wasn't on the set. It has Joe Dante written all over it: it has more cynicism than Spielberg can imagine, and it can even be read as a dead-on satire of Spielberg and his cutesy creature act. Sure the ads say "Spielberg presents..." The ads would say "Jesus Christ presents..." if it would sell tickets...