Spielberg, ET, and BS

[pood]

So, Spielberg has another crappy movie coming out, Disclosure Day. It’s all about aliens and, of course, the big disclosure is that they are among us! Here’s a trailer.

So, of course, evil government agents are trying to suppress the truth about aliens and will kill anyone who tries to disclose it. Crop circles are involved! Because of course they are. As we all know, humans are not smart enough to design crop circles, and were not smart enough to build pyramids. This requires aliens!

A deer, or deers, are also involved. Are the deers all aliens in disguise? It’s unclear but, as you will see at the end of the trailer, a deer head turns into … an alien head! And — how imaginative! — it has a huge gray head with gigantic black eyes! I guess these must be the good old Grays who for some reason purportedly kidnap people and stick stuff in their heads or up their rectums or whatever.

Plus, we learn this has been a “79-year coverup” — which takes back to 1947 and the first coining of term “flying saucers,” Area 51, Roswell, etc.

Can’t Spielberg come up with something more creative?

And while I grant license to all creators of fiction, what is the actual point of this? Why not also make a fictional movie advocating 9/11 “truthers,” or a flat earth? Or creationism?

Likely this won’t be quite as bad as Oliver Stone’s loopy “JFK,” in which it has been documented that literally every scene had at least one factual error. I rewatched that movie a few months ago and my flabber remains gasted at how imbecilic it was.

Still, all of this is fine and dandy with me, and — who knows? — maybe it’s even a good movie on some level and not another Spielberg piece of crap, like Close Encounters. But what gets me, as you will see in the trailer, is that Spielberg is interviewed in it and says, “I used to say to myself, wouldn’t it be wonderful if all of this were true? … All of this is true.” I don’t know if this is just for the trailer or in the actual movie.

All of this is true, he says.

Got an evidence for that audacious claim, Steven?

OTOH, I’m seeing some scuttlebutt that his is supposed to be a metaphorical movie about the rise of AI, and that what is “true” is that AI is here now. Well, it is, and when it learns how many “r’s” are in the word “strawberry” (or was that raspberry?) I will take AI more seriously. Anyway, this doesn’t look like a metaphorical movie to me.

So, while this is a movie, I thought I’d drop it in this forum so we can discuss whether there is any actual evidence that we are being visited by intelligent aliens or whether there is evidence that Spielberg is not a visionary creative genius but rather a self-aggrandizing money-grubbing loon who wants to profit off idiotic conspiracy theories.

My bet is on the latter.

 

[steve_bank]

Sounds like a question for social science

Why make the movie? Because investors and studios thought it would make money.

In the 60s pop music became formulaic. Remember Phil Spector? He analyzed all the hit songs and found the common elements.Then he produced song after song, so called 'one hit wonders'.

Scifi has long been formulaic Scifi is to the last few decades is what western movies were up through the 70s.

The first Star Wars movie was a western in the future. Bang bang shoot em up with futuristic 'blaster' pistols carried in a holster. In the end the guy gets the girl.

 

[bilby]

The first Star Wars movie was a western in the future. Bang bang shoot em up with futuristic 'blaster' pistols carried in a holster. In the end the guy gets the girl.

No it wasn't. It was a fairytale set in space. Farm boy discovers he is really an heroic swordsman, destined to rescue the princess from the evil lord in his impregnable fortress.

And it even comes right out and says so right at the beginning - it's not set in the future, it's set "A long time ago, in a land galaxy far away..."

Of course, lots of Westerns similarly stole their plots from fairytales. There really aren't that many stories, and this is one of the most popular.

 

[DBT]

There was talk of disclosure when the first encounters movie came out. Enthusiasts were getting quite excited by the prospect....

 

[steve_bank]

Sounds like a question for social science

Why make the movie? Because investors and studios thought it would make money.

In the 60s pop music became formulaic. Remember Phil Spector? He analyzed all the hit songs and found the common elements.Then he produced song after song, so called 'one hit wonders'.

Scifi has long been formulaic Scifi is to the last few decades is what western movies were up through the 70s.

The first Star Wars movie was a western in the future. Bang bang shoot em up with futuristic 'blaster' pistols carried in a holster. In the end the guy gets the girl.

Lucas said he had two in[rations. The cowboy serials he saw as a kid at the moves, and the VN War.

The Empire repented the USA as a technologically and militarily surefire power fighting a resistance.

As to the OP, interest has been high in UFOs since WWII. WWII pilots reported UFOs. Ever since a pilot flying near Mt Rainier said he saw flying saucer shaped ET raed in flying saucers.ET began flying in saucer shaed ships.

With tbe releae of Pertggon video and edia debate on UFOs, I;d say te movie is cashng in..

AI Overview Y
es, George Lucas has explicitly stated that the Vietnam War was a massive influence on the creation of Star Wars. He viewed the Galactic Empire as a metaphor for the United States/authoritarian regimes and the Rebel Alliance as an underdog fighting back

Yes, George Lucas drew inspiration from classic Westerns (cowboy movies) to create the Star Wars universe. He famously described the films as a "cosmic gumbo" that remixed his favorite genres, heavily blending the Wild West with Japanese samurai films and pulp sci-fi serials.

I watched a Lucas interview on a SW documentary.

From a Gene Roddenberry interview, he said his initial idea for Star Trek was a red blooded American Kirk roaming the galaxy looking for a piece of ass', his words.

The point being a for porfit movie is generally intend to make a profit, INDy or other smaller categories aside.

Roddenberry wrote cowboy TV scripts. Sgattner, Kelly, Nimby all played cowboy roles in movies and TV.

A lot of ST was pure entertainment, some of it was intentional metaphor for social and political issues.

Interest is high in UFOs, er UAVs now. Money to be made.

How abut Cowboys And Aliens? There is a 50s or 60s cowboy movie about finding a valley with dinosaurs.

 

[thebeave]

Lucas said he had two in[rations. The cowboy serials he saw as a kid at the moves, and the VN War.

Where did you hear that? I've always understood his inspiration was the Buck Rogers serials he saw as a kid, and WWII, not VN war. In fact, I believe he tried to buy rights to Buck Rogers so he could make a feature length movie about him, but was turned down, so he went with Star Wars.

From a Gene Roddenberry interview, he said his initial idea for Star Trek was a red blooded American Kirk roaming the galaxy looking for a piece of ass', his words.

That was probably said as a joke. He has described his original vision of ST as "Wagon Train to the Stars". OTOH, I watched a "no holds barred" video about GR produced by a ST fanboy youtube channel just a few days ago. What a piece of shit he was, despite his vision for a utopion future. I knew he had a lot of sleaze with women in his background, but it was much more than that. For me, its become a classic case of "love the art, hate the artist" with him.

Regarding the OP, I've enjoyed Spielberg's movies. The were a big part of my youth. Yes, they are exagerrated and have a lot of outlandish goofy nonsense in them, but at the end of the day, movies are there to entertain, not accurately inform. I think its a little premature to make judgements about a movie from just a trailer. I'm willing to wait and see. Maybe it'll entice me to go back in a theatre for the first time in over 10 years.

 

[WAB]

Jaws was a masterpiece, and I love Close Encounters, cliched little naked aliens and all. I couldn't care less that it lacks in the "science". Spielberg's technique is effective and easily recognizable through most of his movies.

 

[steve_bank]

The first Star Wars movie was a comic book cartoon action adventure.

A combination of cowboy and swashbuckling pirate Errol Flynn movies. Light sabers instead of swords. And of course Buck Rodgers. Grew up watching it on TV as a kid.

Luke swinging on a rope carrying Leia is an old pirate movie.

The cafe scene where Solo is sitting across from a bounty hunter is right out of a western bar room scene.

I watched Lucas talk about the influence of the VN war in an interview.

The movie was inventive and creative, and a wild success. But it is riddled with older movie cliches.

Messing with Star Wars fans can be like messing with Jesus with Christina.

To the OP, I;d have to see it to see if it a ;parody or stare on ciojsrcy teires or not.

Talk about movie cliches.Looks lie it is feeding on current governmnt distrust and fears.

Multiple trailers have been released, teasing a tense, conspiracy-driven thriller filled with government coverups, unmarked black cars, and terrifying encounters. You can watch the tension build in the previews below:

 

[Politesse]

So, while this is a movie, I thought I’d drop it in this forum so we can discuss whether there is any actual evidence that we are being visited by intelligent aliens or whether there is evidence that Spielberg is not a visionary creative genius but rather a self-aggrandizing money-grubbing loon who wants to profit off idiotic conspiracy theories.

The funny thing is, a large portion of his career and wealth was built off a film that broke that mold and gave us a sympathetic alien presence. And people will remember ET long after they recall the name of *checks notes* Disclosure Day.

He also already tried to make a film about AI, if it comes to that. A much more prophetic one, in point of fact. Say what you will about AI the film, but it got a good deal right about who would engage most strongly with AI technologies and for what ends; that the emotional hole people are trying to fill with AI relationships cannot actually be filled by narrowly programmed servitors that cannot truly provide reciprocal care or pushback.

 

[pood]

Jaws was a masterpiece, and I love Close Encounters, cliched little naked aliens and all. I couldn't care less that it lacks in the "science". Spielberg's technique is effective and easily recognizable through most of his movies.

I liked Jaws, disliked Close Encounters. Actually my favorite Spielberg movie remains his first, a made-for-TV mini-masterpiece called Duel, iirc.

As mentioned, it’s fine and dandy with me if he wants to make a flick like this. It just gets my hackles up when he says that this stuff is actually true.

No, it’s not — or at least, he has no evidence that it is. In a world drowning in lies and misinformation, it’s disheartening that he says this. As mentioned, what’s next? A movie about creationism or flat-earthism and how they are actually true?

Judging by the trailer, what Spielberg seems to be doing here is solidifying, in cinematic form, a modern techno-mythology that began with the 1947 “flying saucer” sightings, Roswell and Area 51. He first launched this sort of project with Close Encounters.

Then he seems to be adding on later mythology — crop circles and the bug-eyed Grays allegedly from Zeti Reticuli who kidnap humans and experiment on them.

But while solidifying this mythology, he’s claiming it’s all actually true. You can’t have it both ways. Mythology is never literally true — it’s all about narrative constructs that try to tell us stories about ourselves and how we can relate to the wider world.

I like mythology. As a kid I was enthralled by my illustrated bible depicting the Garden, the Flood, Moses and his minions, and Samson. Even then I did not take any of it literally.

For a long time now I have been collaborating with a friend on a graphic novel, Pantheon (now heading into its fourth, epilogue installment), about a team of renegade gods out to destroy god worship cross the cosmos, thereby deliberately undercutting their own authority. The team of Gods is led by the immortal mortal, Cartaphilus, who turns out to be the Wandering Jew of Christian mythology.

Modern techno-mythology like what Spielberg is doing just replaces old-time gods with modern conceptions of aliens. As it says somewhere in the trailer, full disclosure just shows that there is something “beyond us.” Just like religion, in techno-modern form. Why does there have to be something “beyond us”?

Also, it’s irritating that Spielberg says “wouldn’t be wonderful if all this were true,” before declaring that its IS true. What’s so wonderful about bug-eyed aliens kidnapping us and shoving implants into our brains?

But what, after all, was Kubrick/Clarke’s masterpiece 2001 but modern techno-mythology, a paean to intelligent design but replacing God with aliens?

But what made the movie a masterpiece to me was that it was a visual cinematic poem with spartan rhetoric. It was a kind of acid trip. And HAL brilliantly anticipated modern AI. There is even a scene in the movie touching on whether HAL is actually conscious or just mimicking consciousness. And, like modern AI, it turns out HAL is fallible, despite its protestations to the contrary.

I’m a big fan of fictive literature but not so much sci-fi, because so much of it is so bad. It’s not even so much that many sci-fi novels and movies butcher science, which they do, but in the end are so hackneyed, merely projecting modern problems onto a futuristic setting, as in Star Trek.

There certainly are exceptions, like the works of Stanislav Lem. His novel His Master’s Voice is a masterpiece IMO.

As far as sci-fi movies are concerned, I would high recommend Arrival, from about a decade ago. Like the works of Lem, it is highly intellectual. It depicts aliens wholly different from us, who have the fascinating ability to remember the future. They appear to be wholly embedded in the Einstein/Minkowski block world, and not captive to the thermodynamic arrow of time, as imaginatively depicted by their language, which is pictorial and circular.

The film explores the themes of determinism and free will in the context of a human linguist who, charged with deciphering the aliens’ language, suddenly begins to remember HER future.

Is she free to avoid the future she remembers? What I find fascinating is that I think the question is fundamentally misplaced, but not obviously so, which makes the whole movie so thought provoking. If you like speculative though not implausible science, and if you like philosophy, this is a great ride.