MovieChat Forums > Super 8 (2011) Discussion > Better than most Spielberg films.

Better than most Spielberg films.

posted 11 years ago by FX_Lord
31 replies | jump to latest

Preparing to be trolled for starting with such a controversial title.

Obviously I'm not talking about Spielberg's Oscar fare (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc) as they deserve to be regarded entirely separately.

I'm talking about films where Spielberg is trying to be popular - i.e. to fill as many seats as possible.

Let's face it, Spielberg's most recent attempts at filling seats (The Adventures of Tintin, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, War of the Worlds) weren't much cop. I say that as a die hard Spielberg fan - he has been my favourite Director my whole life - so that is not easy for me to admit.

But really, I'm more referring to his more charming classics of the past when he wasn't afraid to use proper colour.

Super 8, while being a love note to Spielberg films of the past - in my opinion - bests most of the films that influenced it. Bah one. It is not better than E.T. But it is better than Close Encounters, Raiders (I expect that opinion will probably prompt the most complaints), Hook and Poltergeist.

Had this been released in 1979, it would have had no competition. It would have cost a mere $10M and would have stolen the box office that year. Granted, it would have had an animatronic alien instead of a CGI one (arguably an improvement) but there is nothing else in this film that could not have been achieved in 1979.

Let the trolling begin LOL.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Degree7 11 years ago

If this had been released in 1979, it would have been forgotten about.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

Total bollocks, sorry. Can't really think of anything else to say on that point except that I entirely disagree with you.

But disagreement is allowed, so don't take it personally.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Degree7 10 years ago

This movie is garbage.

Sorry I disagree with you... Although I hate E.T.

~ There is nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster.

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

LOL. Enough said.

That being the case though, that you think 'Super 8' is garbage, why are you here?

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Degree7 10 years ago

Because this is a message board where we can offer dissenting opinions.

~ There is nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster.

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

Indeed you can, if such is your inclination.

Personally, I tend to incline towards boards for films that I either like or I think had some redeemable qualities but could have been improved. I guess the Internet attracts all sorts.

It's a free country so knock yourself out. :)

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Degree7 10 years ago

I came here because I like to read about people's opinions on this film, especially ones that correspond with mine. I was compelled to comment on your thread. While Spielberg films are annoyingly gimmicky, he is still a visual genius, unlike JJ Abrams, a Hollywood nepotistic hack.

I feel compelled to visit this board because I remember how angry I was with this movie, I wanted to pelt the screen with rotten tomatoes when the credits rolled. Now I carry out that fantasy online, and it feels good. Like scratching a bad itch. Only truly terrible films compel me to act this way.

~ There is nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster.

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

Thank you for clearing that up in my mind.

As I said recently, I have a hard time understanding the psychology of people who visit boards of films they dislike at all. I personally never visit the board of a film I don't like, but I guess everyone is not the same.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your point-of-view.

Feel at all better now?

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Degree7 10 years ago

A little bit, thanks.

~ There is nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster.

[–] Cobra1986 11 years ago

Not even better than Hook!

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

You thought Hook was good?

But then, you obviously thought Cobra was good, so our tastes differ somewhat anyway.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Bigsax 10 years ago

Aristotle how old are you? I was born in 84 , Hook is a classic for kids of my generation.

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

Alas I'm a bit older than that by about eight years.

I remember Hook coming out clearly as that was the year I passed my GCSEs - in fact most of them (those based on modular work) I finished on the very day of Hook's release.

Having been a fan of Spielberg my entire life I was so looking forward to see this as a prize for accomplishing my goals. Unfortunately, the experience was rather deflating.

I didn't have the problem with the start of the film, the scenes in Kensington I though were quite amazing. It was after Tink took Peter to Neverland that it became basically a pantomime. Seriously, it seemed that they had gone out of their way to make it child friendly to the point that Walt Disney's Peter Pan (1953) was actually more violent.

I hated the silly battles with the fruit and whatever that coloured liquid was and the balls flying around the floor and the eggs. I wanted real peril not absurd clowndom. At 16 maybe it was a film I was too old for, but I don't remember anyone in 1982 thinking they were too old to watch E.T. That's because that film had real guns in (before Spielberg stupidly took them out for the 20th Anniversary edition) and a real sense of peril. It wasn't kid's stuff, but at the same time it was. It just wasn't patronising kid's stuff like Hook was.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] ubcool 10 years ago

I was born in 1984 and loved hook too when It came out, I also loved aliens and terminator as well so I don't think you can e too old for it. Just I think people had too high expectations and expected something different.

I think super 8 gets a bit underrated like hook does but for different reasons.

[–] Spoffdarko 10 years ago

The only one in your list I agree with is Hook, Super 8 is better than Hook.

I think it is roughly on par with Poltergeist.

But better than CE3K and Raiders? get real.

Had Super 8 been released in 1979, I agree, there would have been little competition in it's genre. 1979 was rather a dry year for this type of film.

The main problem with your argument is that you cite only one film of Spielberg's which was released before Super 8 is set, and in your list of four films only one really contains concrete similarities with Super 8 (E.T. which is from 1982)There are some with CE3K but that mainly stems from the time-setting and the alien aspects.

Super 8 is a homage to Spielberg films which were mostly directed or produced/ exec produced by him in the 1980's, not the 1970's.

I don't believe Super 8 bests any of Spielberg's films from the 80's, but it does encompass many Spielberg and non-Spielberg involved films, I see inspiration drawn from:

E.T.
CE3K
Goonies
Explorers
Gremlins
Poltergeist

"No I don't wonder Marty. The world needs bad men, we keep the other bad men from the door".

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

We're allowed to disagree - it's a free country after all.

Can I just say, however, that a few years ago I undeniably would have agreed with you. However, the reason I would have agreed with you would have had more to do with a trick my mind was playing on me than my actual tastes.

What I have learned about my own brain in the meantime - something that applies to everyone's brain apparently - is that it loves the familiar. In fact the human mind even releases endorphines as a reward when watching and rewatching that which we were fond of as children. It is this fact that is partially - if not totally - responsible for the 'classic' factor. A pedestal upon which we mount those things we first saw 20 or 30 years ago that makes those films untouchable.

I first encountered this phenomenon - that I would not be aware of for another 20-odd years - when I went to see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in the cinema. I already had the two other Indiana Jones films on video that I had been watching and rewatching for several years. Hence, when I left the theatre, I felt deflated - like I was expecting to see an Indiana Jones film but they had replaced the actor playing him, or changed the music, or the Director or something. I couldn't put my finger on it, it just didn't feel in any way equal to the first two films.

Of course, the film grew on me over the years, but it never really came close to those films until the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull came out. Suddenly, that film became the outcast and the Last Crusade was packed more neatly in my memory with the other two. So, thank you Spielberg for making that film if only to help me appreciate the Last Crusade more.

This incident, and my more subsequent studies into the human mind, have helped me to remove the 'classic bias' and appreciate each film I watch for the level of enjoyment I feel watching it. I no longer rewatch films ad nauseum from my childhood, which makes me a lot more objective about films than I used to be.

Anyhow, that's my point. Sorry it took so long to convey.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] fhp007 10 years ago

I borrowed this at the library, only taking it because it said "Steven Spielberg" above the title, and usually Steven does deliver something watchable and I felt a cold coming on, so why not?

I started watching, thinking to myself that it was a little boring, but expecting the arrival of the alien to shake things up I continued on.

I watched most of the movie normally, but after the alien had come and gone, I started fast forwarding over some of the long dialogue - not because it was bad, but boring? Yep.

At the end I thought this was worst Spielberg movie I had seen, and then the credits said it was JJ who was the directer.

Now... I'm not saying this is a bad movie, but it is a childrens movie, it is slowly paced, and after the plot became apparent I couldn't help but think "ET 2 - Not all aliens are nice".

It is an okay movie, for what it is, but the best part of it was "The Case" ^^

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

Hm.

Well there's no accounting for taste is there.

What I will say though is that every line of dialogue in a JJ Abrams film has a function. So, if you fast-forwarded through 'boring' dialogue scenes, you probably missed a few plot points which would not help you assess the film with any accuracy.

I don't expect you to take my word for that and try watching it again, but it is a point to bear in mind.

Oh, and it's not a Spielberg film, it's an Abrams film. It's important that that distinction is made I think.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] fhp007 10 years ago

Yes - and that may be the reason I got disappointed: The cover only said "Steven Spielberg" and not "JJ Abrams" - had SS not been mentioned, I likely wouldn't have picked it up, but if I had, my expectations would have been lower. JJ is a bit bland for my taste, but I will give him another chance with Star Wars VII.

As for the dialogue - Yep I got that when the drunkard apologized about the dead wife; it was only after I read some posts in here that I got that he didn't kill her, but just had her cover his shift.

[–] Anticitizen 10 years ago

What I will say though is that every line of dialogue in a JJ Abrams film has a function.

Where do you come up with this garbage?

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

An excellent point my friend.

Another point, which I made to a film student not so long ago, was that just about every line of dialogue in a film written by JJ Abrams is 'combative dialogue'. Most writers aim for this - to increase the amount of drama - but few ever manage it at the frequency that Abrams does.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Mylobage 10 years ago

I can't belive you mentioned Raiders. I mean, wow. I'm just flabbergasted that writing that sentence is even possible. This is probably what early explorers felt like when the realized the world wasn't flat.

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

It's just my opinion my friend. No-one's putting a gun to your head and saying you have to agree with it.

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Mylobage 10 years ago

Obviously I don't agree with it, but it doesn't negate the fact that someone actually belives it. Crazy *beep*

[–] Cypherven 10 years ago

I'm sorry, this movie had heart, good characters, and lots of nostalgia. But the story got lost when they reveal the mystery.

It actually made me appreciate Spielberg more than ever. Every time there's a new young successful director they call him "the next Spielberg" but the truth is nobody will be like him.

[–] Recognizer 10 years ago

I can agree with most of your post, except the part about ET and Close Encounters.

In my view, Encounters is one of Spielberg's best films. As much as I like Super 8, CE is superior (IMHO).

As for ET ... well, this opinion is no doubt unpopular, but I never really liked it. It's certainly not one of Spielberg's strongest films, but is probably the most over-hyped film of all time.

I fight for the users! -- TRON

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

I appreciate your opinion. I appreciate any opinion that is so eloquently put.

More out of interest on the effects of demographical differences on people's experience of this film, may I ask how old you are and what age you were when you first saw E.T?

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] Recognizer 10 years ago

Thanks :) I likewise respect your opinion. More than happy to discuss films with people such as yourself.

To answer your question, I am 42, and I first saw E.T. on it's initial release, so I would have been 10.

I fight for the users! -- TRON

[–] FX_Lord 10 years ago

Curious. You were more or less exactly the target audience for E.T. I notice you're a Tron fan. I didn't see Tron for many years after so I wasn't too impressed at the time although it would later grow on me.

Did you also see Tron during its initial run (it was another of those 1982 films that was rolled over at the box office by E.T. like The Thing and Annie)?

"I don't reckon I got no reason to kill nobody."

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] andrewhollingsworth 9 years ago

I'll give you Hook mostly for the same reasons you have already given. It is too whimsical. I also feel it is better than most of Spielberg's most recent non-Oscar bait. I enjoyed War of the World's the first time I saw it but for me it doesn't hold up well under repeated viewings.

However, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on the others, mostly because of Super 8's biggest flaw. That is pacing. I quite enjoyed watching it but both times I did, I fell asleep. I don't think the movie keeps the viewer as engaged like Close *beep* ET, Raiders or Poltergeist does. (Although the latter is a Tobe Hooper film but there are a lot of rumours that Spielberg took over as he wasn't pleased with Hooper's directing.)

Another weakness is that it is simply a love letter to Spielberg's style of movie. It therefore lacks its own voice a bit. Goerge Lucas made a love letter to old school serials but he wasn't focused on one directorial or movie style. There's elements of Kuosawa, Ford and even Lean in some of the visuals and themes as well as war movies like The Dambusters. Ultimately I think JJ lacks a strong individual voice and this likely to prevent him from ever being revered anywhere near as highly as Spielberg. It's a shame as the movie industry needs director's influenced by what I believe was the golden age of blockbusters and family friendly movies (1975-1985).

We are now post Episode 7 and I have to say that I think JJ did a great job. It did use a lot of ideas from the original trilogy as Super 8 does from Spielberg's movies but it is very well paced. Possibly the best paced Star Wars movie since the original trilogy and possibly even better paced than A New Hope, though not a better film.

I find it sad that JJ gets a lot of hate and is seen by some who has ruined franchises. I thought his remake of Star Trek was pretty good. I'm a fan of Trek from the original series but I always thought that Trek needed a bit more action and was unsatisfied with the quality of most of the movies with the exception of Khan. Sadly I do think he got things wrong by looking at Khan as the inspiration for his second Star Trek film. It needed more originality and this is an interesting dichotomy between his recycling of ideas between Star Wars and Star Trek. One succeeds a lot more than the other in my mind.