The point is not necessarily the film itself but the 'genre' it inspired that @Heavy alludes to, the one which I understand (not having seen it) that "Stranger Things" is a reimagining of, as @Redolegna says. I didn't care for ET at the time either, but I did like Flight of the Navigator, Explorers, etc. and I suspect those would not have been made without it.I think popular culture would have trundled along quite nicely without it. Even eleven-year-old me didn't think that much of ET: The Extraterrestrial.
But if they didn't exist, you wouldn't know that you liked them. ET: The Extraterrestrial was part of a genre that already existed - you can't plagiarise something that doesn't exist.I didn't care for ET at the time either, but I did like Flight of the Navigator, Explorers, etc. and I suspect those would not have been made without it.
Something generally has to be popular to either 1) inspire others or 2) more importantly, persuade studios to sign off on said others. It's not enough to just exist.
So Close Encounters of the Third Kind is most important Hollywood film of the last 25 years of the 20th century? It's a good film at least, compared to ET: The Extraterrestrial and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which never struck me as particularly cerebral)The only reason that film was made as the very long, very slow-paced, very effects-heavy and cerebral piece it was was because of the success of Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
It'd be one of them, yes, but as Ryan argues, so's ET.So Close Encounters of the Third Kind is most important Hollywood film of the last 25 years of the 20th century?
You aren't winning me over here, Charles.Bay's Transformers, even, which itself may be more influential than we want to think on subsequent summer blockbusters and exists due to Stevey.
Oh, yeah, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? happened almost entirely because Spielberg wanted it to happen.Between them, Jaws (first modern summer blockbuster), Raiders (major influence for 80s), Jurassic Park (kickstarting CGI effects and ending stopmotion), and Saving Private Ryan (reshaping how war was depicted), Speilberg's really got a record for that and that's not counting the films and cartoons and careers he oversaw as a producer. Bay's Transformers, even, which itself may be more influential than we want to think on subsequent summer blockbusters and exists due to Stevey.
It's not really a question of qualitative judgment.You aren't winning me over here, Charles.
I avoid anything Transformers-related with the same level of vigilance I have with Harry Potter.
I don't even like the Lou Reed album, much.
The tools are very well developed. They got to the moon.2001: A Space Odyssey is about the development of tools.
Everything is.It's not really a question of qualitative judgment.
I'm just saying, there's, "Is this movie influential?" and there's, "Is this movie good?" and the answer to both questions don't have to be the same.Everything is.