- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this new article by @RyanF here
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Popular Culture Without E.T.
- Thread starter Gary Oswald
- Start date
- Location
- Derbyshire
I don't think I've ever really grasped how big a year for film that was.
Sorry Atari, I'm willing to sacrifice you to preserve OTL
- Location
- Doncaster/ Sheffield
It makes for interesting speculation - I don't know if E.T. starts the genre or not but I feel like it's what inspired the "kids in peril" movies of the rest of the decade, some of which Spielberg produced. Things like The Goonies and Stand by Me are the famous examples. I feel like Home Alone was the pinnacle of that genre; I can't really think of any really big examples after it; maybe if Jurassic Park didn't have the adults in it, but it does, so it's not. But maybe if E.T. isn't about, those movies are just some more of the ones that don't happen, in addition to the ones you mentioned in the article.
Is 1982 the only time a movie like E.T. could become the biggest movie of all time? It feels like kind of an odd-one-out in that discussion. Before it, you have The Godfather which was a massive prestige thing that everybody had heard about. Jaws was the first summer blockbuster (but there is zero prospect that a borderline horror movie would be a fraction as big today as Jaws was in 1975). Star Wars was Star Wars. And then after it, Jurassic Park had realistic dinosaurs and everybody loves dinosaurs. Titanic was a bona fide cultural phenomenon. Avatar had legitimately unprecedented special effects work. Avengers: Endgame was the finale of its series everybody had been following for 10 years (I don't feel like it has the legacy you would expect but as @Thande pointed out to me that's probably because I block all comment sections everywhere on the Internet).
E.T. had everything going for it, but it's a family movie with a lot of heart but relatively little action in it, not much in the way of effects stuff. Basically it's got very little of the things that the so-called experts claim that movies in 2020 need to be a major hit, never mind the biggest movie ever.
Is 1982 the only time a movie like E.T. could become the biggest movie of all time? It feels like kind of an odd-one-out in that discussion. Before it, you have The Godfather which was a massive prestige thing that everybody had heard about. Jaws was the first summer blockbuster (but there is zero prospect that a borderline horror movie would be a fraction as big today as Jaws was in 1975). Star Wars was Star Wars. And then after it, Jurassic Park had realistic dinosaurs and everybody loves dinosaurs. Titanic was a bona fide cultural phenomenon. Avatar had legitimately unprecedented special effects work. Avengers: Endgame was the finale of its series everybody had been following for 10 years (I don't feel like it has the legacy you would expect but as @Thande pointed out to me that's probably because I block all comment sections everywhere on the Internet).
E.T. had everything going for it, but it's a family movie with a lot of heart but relatively little action in it, not much in the way of effects stuff. Basically it's got very little of the things that the so-called experts claim that movies in 2020 need to be a major hit, never mind the biggest movie ever.
napoleon IV
Cowboys. Acceptable.
- Location
- Washington, Douglass Commonwealth
- Pronouns
- he/him
You're ignoring the most important pop culture change: no ET means no Mac and Me.
Ah yes,the movie where I learned that Coca Cola and the Big Mac are sacred foods.You're ignoring the most important pop culture change: no ET means no Mac and Me.
God bless McDonalds
Arthur_Phuxache
Total Inabilty To Supply Usual Performance
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
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.
- Location
- Doncaster/ Sheffield
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.
Arthur_Phuxache
Total Inabilty To Supply Usual Performance
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
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.
- Location
- Doncaster/ Sheffield
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.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.
If you asked people in the early 1970s "say they decide to bring back Star Trek and make a film out of it, what would it be like" absolutely nobody would picture what Star Trek: The Motion Picture turned out as - even though the concept of 'human probe sent into deep space goes mad, comes back and turns on humans' already existed and indeed had already been done in an episode of the TV series. 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.
Arthur_Phuxache
Total Inabilty To Supply Usual Performance
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
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.
Of course, none of those films would have been made without 2001: A Space Odyssey having been a surprise success. The memetic power of aliens being godlike and benign starts there.
Last edited:
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?
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.
Arthur_Phuxache
Total Inabilty To Supply Usual Performance
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
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.
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.
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.
At the absolute least, the Disney characters are in it because Spielberg wanted them in it and in 1988, even the Walt Disney Company coud not say no to Steven Spielberg.
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.
Arthur_Phuxache
Total Inabilty To Supply Usual Performance
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
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.
The film-as-toy-advert reached its apotheosis with ET: The Extra-Terrestrial. On those terms it eclipsed Return of the Jedi.
Last edited:
Indeed. Rob Liefeld's Youngblood is objectively one of the most important American comics of the 21st century, and Liefeld one of the most influential artists. The fact he can't draw feet doesn't come into itIt'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.
Lots of people dislike, say, Jar-Jar Binks (not me, though), but the leap forward in motion capture technology that Jar-Jar represented can't really be exaggerated.
Does Gollum happen without Jar-Jar? I don't know, but Andy Serkis in a suit with a bunch of dots on it is probably an easier sell in a post-Jar-Jar world.