how does Spielberg do it?
>berg
>>62793493
His movies are really safe, have good effects, good acting and appeal to a lot of people from all walks of life.
He nose how to make a good movie
>>62793493
He's been doing this for fucking decades, had a based Cohen bros script, and made sure Tom hanks had a starring role. This isn't surprising.
>>62793522
this, but Bridge of Spies actually elevates above the rest of his post-200 filmography. It doesn't try to warp history for a social cause or have any kind of prejudices: its the story of an ordinary man having the moral weight of the entire world on his shoulders and he pulls it off great. Scrip by the Coens helps as well
>>62793613
Fuck, now I want to see it.
>>62793534
kek. subtle
Why does Tom Hanks look like he's perpetually about to cry?
>>62793493
He follows a formula and hires a safe cast and crew he knows he can rely on to do the same.
It's like asking how a 70 year old carpenter who's been making houses for the last 50 years how his houses turn out so good.
He's been around, and he knows how to make them.
>>62793647
He's always remembering the six million.
>>62793625
you should see it, it made me so happy to see a Spielberg film I liked again
I'm hesitant for Ready Player One though
>>62793661
except he doesn't follow a "formula", his films are made about very different subject matters and his form changes accordingly, different directorial choices on every film. what you're saying is like he found some secret recipe and just repeats it on every movie which couldn't be farther away from the truth.
>>62793493
he's a master of his craft and at this point of his career he still feels a responsibility to his audience and his craft to provide a superior product with his name on it
>>62793726
... that's exactly what he does. Not what he's always done, but what he does. And the most adventurous he gets is to return to an OLDER formula that he used to play with.
Bridge of Spies is nothing we haven't already seen in Lincoln, War Horse, or Munich. He just pumps out Oscar-bait biopics that are scored by John Williams or someone else he's collaborated with a lot and casts someone guaranteed to do a great job in the lead role and pull in the reliable audiences. Outside of those movies, the only other one he's done at all recently is bloody Indiana Jones, returning to an old formula, failing horribly with it, and quickly bouncing right back into safe biopics, publicly announcing his regret at returning to the franchise.
This isn't to take away from the Spielberg we knew and loved from like 1975-1995ish, who was obviously still flourishing and growing. But once he hit his peak, and he stopped being a young man, he left the blockbusters and action-packed adventure movies to the newer generation of directors and, yes, exactly as you said it, repeats his recipe on every movie.
You could maybe make an argument for Tintin but I dunno if I'd count an animated movie personally.
>>62793918
The Academy doesn't recognize it as animated. And as it's the best and most inspired thing Spielberg's directed in years, you bet your ass it counts.
>>62793982
Don't they? And yeah, fair enough. I also enjoyed it a lot.
>>62794036
Motion capture isn't considered animation and hasn't been since just after Happy Feet. It's why Tintin wasn't nominated for best animated picture.
>>62794064
It was nominated for animated feature by the Globes, and the BAFTAs, and a dozen other ceremonies.
It wasn't nominated for any Oscar at all, apart from music. I thought it just got shunned.
>>62794064
>Motion capture isn't considered animation
it really really is.
>>62793613
>>62793625
You know what's crazy? They could do a sequel, the U.S called him again to deal with Castro during the missile crisis, and won.
>>62794096
Yeah, it's a weird, but official, rule. The popular opinion is that it was put in place to prevent live action movies that rely on mocap, like Avatar or Warcraft, from getting nominated for BAF.
>>62794149
Tell it to the Academy.
>>62794172
can't, it's displayed in text in the epilogue.
>>62794064
>Motion capture isn't considered animation and hasn't been since just after Happy Feet.
>>62794207
>Tell it to the Academy.
Can you provide source? I can't find it anywhere on the Academy website.
>>62793493
He figured out how to pander to who.
>>62794207
The Academy isn't the be-all and end-all of the film industry, it's just the bestower of a prestigious award. As others have pointed out in this thread, their views aren't even shared by other awards ceremonies, let alone the industry in general.
Tintin is an animated movie. And what you said here >>62794064 about motion-capture being considered animation since Happy Feet just doesn't feel right, because of the winners of the five Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature since 2010, at least two of them (Toy Story 3 and Rango) used motion-capture. In fairness, Toy Story 3 only used it for the humans, and entirely animated the toys, but Rango used it for all the main characters.
So if it IS an Academy rule, it's not one they're that strict about, apparently.
>>62794349
Now that I'm actually digging all I'm getting was that the academy did have a piss on about mocap movies because of the whole Zemeckis thing, and did seriously consider using too much mocap as a reason to disqualify an entry. Considering Tintin got snubbed over Puss in Boots it's not hard to believe they were at least trying to act on it that year.
