RIP Tobe Hooper

[EvilNed]

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/to...es-1202539868/

[MinionZombie]

Damn! There's some great flicks in his back catalogue. I recently re-watched Eaten Alive, for example (also known by various other titles such as Death Trap), and it's a damn fine film with that early Hooper vibe all over it. Then there's the likes of Lifeforce, which is a pretty out-there movie at times, but is so enjoyable and over-the-top (it's a mini epic in itself, crammed to the gills with special effects). Naturally, I'm a big fan of TCM 1 & 2, and Poltergeist is excellent. I enjoyed his remake of The Toolbox Murders (the original film is half-good and half-shit), which had more about it and was structured far better than the original (even if it did lose the down 'n' dirty sleazy slasher vibe of the original). We've been losing some greats this year, and the icons of horror are all going to eventually pass on.

[Neil]

Watched Poltergeist twice in the last year! Great flick! That said isn't there some confusion about who directed how much of it? Steven Spielberg or him?

[MinionZombie]

Watched Poltergeist twice in the last year! Great flick! That said isn't there some confusion about who directed how much of it? Steven Spielberg or him? There's been a rumbling rumour about all that. Spielberg has at some point stated that it wasn't so and Hooper was fully in charge ... but he would say that, wouldn't he?! Seriously, though, it's such an urban legend (in a way) that who really knows what the truth, anyway? Or, at least, anyone who's not only trustworthy but willing to state on the record. The Spielberg influence is undoubtedly there in terms of the production and screenplay, but whether that really means Hooper didn't 'really' direct the film or not is a whole separate issue with no actual answer. Regardless, Hooper was at the helm and it's a crackin' film. It was on TCM just the other night. I must watch it again. I remember when I was young being forbidden to watch it because it was "too scary". I was then shown, at a friend's house (and completely out of context), the infamous 'face ripping' scene.

[Neil]

I was then shown, at a friend's house (and completely out of context), the infamous 'face ripping' scene. Which of course is very similar to Indiana Jones (in style and feel)!

[JDP]

Damn! There's some great flicks in his back catalogue. I recently re-watched Eaten Alive, for example (also known by various other titles such as Death Trap), and it's a damn fine film with that early Hooper vibe all over it. Then there's the likes of Lifeforce, which is a pretty out-there movie at times, but is so enjoyable and over-the-top (it's a mini epic in itself, crammed to the gills with special effects). Naturally, I'm a big fan of TCM 1 & 2, and Poltergeist is excellent. I enjoyed his remake of The Toolbox Murders (the original film is half-good and half-shit), which had more about it and was structured far better than the original (even if it did lose the down 'n' dirty sleazy slasher vibe of the original). We've been losing some greats this year, and the icons of horror are all going to eventually pass on. Another movie of his I enjoyed was the remake of Invaders from Mars. Sure, it had goofy parts and what have you, but the whole premise of the Martians coming to our planet to satisfy their copper-hungry based technology by stealing our copper supplies was cool. One thing I did not understand, though, is how come neither the scientists nor the military seemed to show anything other than just a passing curiosity regarding how the Martians managed to generate such power from a common & cheap metal like copper. Such a thing would have a huge impact on our own civilization, so you would think that one of their priorities would in fact be to capture some Martians (to try to obtain information directly from them) or at least some of their weapons or machines to try to figure out how they do this, but none of the human characters seemed the least interested in learning about this very important topic.

[EvilNed]

Another movie of his I enjoyed was the remake of Invaders from Mars. Sure, it had goofy parts and what have you, but the whole premise of the Martians coming to our planet to satisfy their copper-hungry based technology by stealing our copper supplies was cool. One thing I did not understand, though, is how come neither the scientists nor the military seemed to show anything other than just a passing curiosity regarding how the Martians managed to generate such power from a common & cheap metal like copper. Such a thing would have a huge impact on our own civilization, so you would think that one of their priorities would in fact be to capture some Martians (to try to obtain information directly from them) or at least some of their weapons or machines to try to figure out how they do this, but none of the human characters seemed the least interested in learning about this very important topic. We have enough with hobos digging up wires as it is.

[Moon Knight]

RIP! Love The Funhouse!!!! Pretty underrated. Definitely gave us some classics.

[MinionZombie]

RIP! Love The Funhouse!!!! Pretty underrated. Definitely gave us some classics. I'd forgotten about that one for a moment there, but yes, that's a crackin' flick. It was a shame the money men made him show so much of the monster (the mask wasn't designed to be seen in full light), but it's one of those lesser known gems. It has that off-balance weirdness that Hooper's earlier films had in abundance.

[shootemindehead]

Another one gone. Odd director, Hooper. Much of his output I disliked, but I still recognise him as one of the greats of the 70's. This is largely, or entirely, due to 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' of course. He did nothing else that could truly be called "great". Ok there's 'Poltergeist'. But that has so much Speilberg over it that I cannot consider it a Tobe Hooper film, to be honest. It looks and feels like a Steven Speilberg one. There's 'Salem's Lot', which was good as a kid. But, as an adult, it's mildly entertaining but it leaves a lot to be desired. The rest I couldn't care that much about. Always seemed like a nice bloke, though, in interviews.

[MinionZombie]

There's a really good tribute podcast you can listen to here: http://podcastone.com/episode/tobe-hooper-tribute Mick Garris' "Post Mortem" podcast (they recently did a tribute to Wes Craven, and are doing one for Romero soon). Anyway, this one features Caroline Williams, Bill Moseley, and an interview from a few years ago with the man himself. A warm and interesting listen, and they also touch on the Poltergeist issue - seems it was possibly more confusion on a part of Spielberg being on-set a lot, his large reputation preceding him, so you end up with a 'so is Hooper still my director?' situation swirling around a little bit, but Garris speaks emphatically in defense of Hooper's involvement from early pre-production on (as in, Hooper's fingerprints are all over the film). Just because there's some Spielberg elements throughout Poltergeist, it doesn't necessarily mean they're all him. Remember with A.I. how we all thought the sweet stuff was Spielberg and the dark stuff was Kubrick, but it turned out to be the other way around? Anyway - the podcast is well worth a listen (there's numerous other interviews that make for good ear food, as well )

[shootemindehead]

Hooper's fingerprints may be all over the film, but Spielberg's hands are wrapped tightly around it. So much so, that it feels like a Steven Spielberg film. It has a lot of similarities with his other stuff. To many to ignore. I keep having to remind myself that it's Tobe Hooper's name on the directors chair.

[MinionZombie]

I suppose with Spielberg being a producer, and having conceived the story and co-written the screenplay, then it's going to have that 'Spielberg feel' to it. Apparently there was some kind of legal limit on how many films he could direct in a given window, so he had to find someone else to do the job. It'd be interesting to know exactly what it was like for Hooper working on that project, but it was also nice to hear Garris stick up for Hooper (as the rumours are so often stacked against Hooper) ... and being that they're rumours we don't really know what actually went on. We'll never really know, but nevertheless it's a great flick ... ... that said, TCM blows it out of the water.

[shootemindehead]

I'd say it was crap for him working on 'Poltergeist'. But, fair play, he never made a deal of it, big or otherwise. Hooper always came across to me a sound bloke. Someone you could have a pint with and a natter about something. Sure, it's only rumours etc. But, if you've watched any St. Spielberg films, you'll see glaring simularities and I'm not just talking about his mark on production or writing. For instance, the way the family scenes are directed is pure Spielberg and you can see threads of it from 'Jaws' to 'E.T.', it's impossible to ignore. And yes, 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' blows it out of the water. To me 'Poltergeist' is horror-lite. It's an ok film, but I can really take it or leave it. Hooper's first effort is a classic, though, in every sense of the word and part of horror cinema legend. I especially love the story that they simply ran out of film at the end, an end which I thought was genius when I first saw it. Now I know it was just a matter of money, or lack thereof.

[MinionZombie]

I especially love the story that they simply ran out of film at the end, an end which I thought was genius when I first saw it. Now I know it was just a matter of money, or lack thereof. The chainsaw swinging part, you mean, cutting to black? I love that moment, as the viewer you're just disappeared into a void of black after this totally delirious nightmare. TCM is one of those groundbreaking, genre-changing landmarks. Naturally, it's hard to live up to that in whatever else you do afterwards, but Hooper did some excellent flicks afterwards as well.