Come spend a year anticipating J J Abrams's SUPER 8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NECsrx7VC3I

dude I dunno if you should be fucking with ***TOP SECRET*** material

huh

Oh right, Cloverfield 8

Is this the "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" prequel we all needed?

i will be there opening night in one year because i love the idea of this guy doing late '70s spielberg, but fuck an entire year of the hype machine is slowly gonna kill it for me :(

Aw yeah.

Okay the new teaser is out and was the best 30 seconds of the superbowl today.

Love the vintage John Williamsish score and mustachio'd cops making wtf faces at ceiling. The vibe is so pure I wonder if kids too young for the nostalgia factor will still check it out.

Abrams talks a bit:

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/02/06/super-8-j-j-abrams-2/

i will be there opening night in one year because i love the idea of this guy doing late '70s spielberg, but fuck an entire year of the hype machine is slowly gonna kill it for me :(

Gotta say this has been actually handled pretty well so far.

haha as soon as i read myself saying that i thought "you idiot you totally got this wrong"

yeah i didn't even know this existed until today

I like that you can tell Abrams is thinking in that interview "If only once-a-year Comic-Con hype was all you needed to do."

great interview. Love the bit about Spielberg wanting to do a "divorce" movie and making E.T.

wow that teaser was awesome!

that's one of those teasers that almost makes you not want to spoil it by seeing the movie

I'm no Abrams fan by any means but this is pushing a lot of my buttons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtn5dm9uYi8&feature=player_embedded

Yeah, I find myself getting really excited for this, but I have a feeling it can't possibly live up to me expectations.

so im pretty hyped for this. love love love coach taylor.

still never seen anything jj abrams that i liked, tho.

i do like steve spielberg. wish john williams was involved.

that's one of those teasers that almost makes you not want to spoil it by seeing the movie

― My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (Princess TamTam), Sunday, February 6, 2011 11:44 PM (4 months ago) Bookmark

based on what im hearing from reviews, this could be the way to go

love love love coach taylor.

This is my main motivation going in.

That trailer had a real touch of the M. Night Shyamalan about it.

which is to say spielberg at a generation's remove, yeah

That's straight 100% Spielberg imo, which has always been Abrams' ambition anyway.

yeah, the crane shots at the beginning, the drew barrymore-esque love interest (?), kids blazing thru on bmx bikes, ffs. 80s spielberg all the way.

If Cloverfield was his Close Encounters/Jaws, this is definitely his E.T. (with a dark side?).

Cloverfield is the only thing he's done that I really love and he didn't even direct it. But I still have faith in this!

Oh wow, I don't think I ever realized he didn't direct Cloverfield. (I haven't seen it since it was in the theaters, though.)

he didnt write cloverfield either! just slapped his name on it

Well that dirty so and so...

I believe Abrams came up with the "concept" for Cloverfield and in fairness it was obviously his name that got it made.

sort of funny how we're still so firmly stuck to the idea that the director and perhaps the writer are the true and sole "authors" of a film, while the producer is just this moneyman suit. in some cases, this seems way off base (since we're talking about spielberg, e.g., poltergeist).

Yeah but Spielberg actually did direct Poltergeist

i agree w you, but tobe hooper gets the screen credit. SS was supposedly just the producer.

I think that was something of an anomaly, i mean Hooper wanted his name taken off the picture iirc. But yeah, i'm sure there are plenty of movies where the producer has a huge influence and i'd say Cloverfield is probably one of them.

^ yeah, that was my point

sort of funny how we're still so firmly stuck to the idea that the director and perhaps the writer are the true and sole "authors" of a film, while the producer is just this moneyman suit. in some cases, this seems way off base (since we're talking about spielberg, e.g., poltergeist).

― And the piano, it sounds like a carnivore (contenderizer), Wednesday, June 8, 2011 6:21 AM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark

oh i definitely dont think that producers are empty suits, and abrams was certainly one of key figures in the development of this picture - i think it was his idea to begin with, anyway. i was really just concurring in a roundabout way with johnny's surprise at finding out that he didnt direct it, because i was also convinced that he did for a pretty long time.

producers do a lot of stuff. spielberg's an interesting example because he's had a huge producing career and his level of involvement has varied wildly with different projects. sometimes he's a major creative force, sometimes he's just a guy who puts his name on something to help get it made. i do get the impression that abrams is more formidable as 'brand' & as a salesman than he is as a creative entity.

producers (and the prod supervisor) basically made the movies at big studios in the '20s, '30s and into the '40s, from writing to editing to reshoots. Most of the mainstream Hollywood directors now are marketers, so not nec. (tho Spielberg and Ap*t*w would be among those who obv have input)

I'm probably setting myself up for huge disappointment, but I'm really excited to see this movie. Mostly because the trailers remind me of the first time I ever saw Close Encounters. I was home sick at about age 10 and was watching bits of it between dozing off, so I ended up with this weird impression of certain scenes and images rather than of the movie as a whole. These images stuck deep into my brain until I finally saw the whole movie through a couple years later.

The NY Times Abrams profile is good. Having Spielberg producing means that it's an homage to his 70s movies instead of a steal.

This was a letdown, sorry to say. Definitely more Spielberg-via-Shyamalan than real deal Spielberg.

I'm probably setting myself up for huge disappointment, but I'm really excited to see this movie. Mostly because the trailers remind me of the first time I ever saw Close Encounters.

Ditto.

Love the poster

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmgn84tGsW1qzass3o1_500.jpg

set in the late '70s, right? I might go to a budget matinee just for that factor.

Somewhere out there is Super 8 footage of me shaking a fist at the Nixon White House.

Set in 1979 and most of the period references are presented sans smirk.

what is this movie about, then

xpost Tho I'm sure you'll appreciate a punchline aimed at disco's expense.

sold!

can't see that actor and not think of that horrible tv show Early Edition

great poster.

I will not be seeing this movie.

I imagine ILX on average will probably rate this higher than every Spielberg movie from the last decade. Morbius said so.

the Beard was great in the 00s! and lol Morbius asterisking Apatow like it's Voldemort

well, in comedy terms...

can't see that actor and not think of that horrible tv show Early Edition

Most people washed that experience away with five terrific years of Friday Night Lights.

what is this movie about, then

― thomp, Wednesday, June 8, 2011 11:47 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

its about a town besieged by lens flares

its about some kids shooting a super 8 movie in their small town who use the appearance of an actual monster wreaking havok to get some cool shots of actual destruction and stuff. it's just a regular monster, there's no twist of any kind

Thoroughly enjoyed this. Really careful balance between mundane plot and and the apocalypse. Really careful with tone. Glad I knew almost nothing before seeing it, because it's really about the surprising details that come back.

this was pretty entertaining. boring-ass monster though >:(

this did a pretty good job emulating spielbergisms but there's nothing here as traumatic as those raccoons munching on ET

i must have blocked that

it's in this scene:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iXglNcGRFSI/TCckpEYF7SI/AAAAAAAAB08/3J6GGCeE-Lc/s1600/etdead.png

I liked this.

Sort of interesting theme with the "it's gotta have a story!" aspect, a self-conscious critique of recent blockbuster trends?

Also I got the weird feeling that the kids in this movie were definitely "acting" at being 70s kids, it seems almost studied, where there was a more naturalistic feel to performances in actual spielberg movies. But I did think all the boys having girly screams was a nice touch, even if the vomiting seemed a little too desperate for a laugh.

Also I got the weird feeling that the kids in this movie were definitely "acting" at being 70s kids, it seems almost studied, where there was a more naturalistic feel to performances in actual spielberg movies.

Elle Fanning was one Leno last night or the night before with a packet of 70s teen slang that JJ had given all the kid actors to learn. Seemed silly and it wasn't even 100% accurate ("gag me with a spoon" is clearly from the 80s), but whatever.

one=on

That's actually been one of my whole problems with the film (at a distance, since I've not seen it and keep wavering) -- one of the reason why Spielberg's run with Jaws/Close Encounters/ET worked so well is that they weren't nostalgia exercises; the kids and the families shown were meant to be just that, recognizably of the moment. If Spielberg had set them all in the fifties then that would have been lost to one degree or another (whereas Raiders is of course MEANT to be nostalgic escapism etc.), so Abrams wanting to recapture the feel of these films by setting them in the time they were done strikes me as unnecessarily quixotic.

^ yeah, spielberg's evocation of white, middle class, west coast/american suburbia in the 80s is amazing mostly for its offhand, seemingly effortless accuracy & honesty. one of the things that attracted me to those films as a kid was how home-like they seemed (extend this to poltergeist, too), how much their environment and culture was my own. the kids and parents interacted like real kids and parents, they lived in familiar spaces and struggled with the difficulties of a life i knew and understood intimately. he knew that world and wasn't really addressing or describing it so much as simply inhabiting it ― and inhabiting, too, its pop-cultural obsessions and escapist fantasies. made the unheimlich invasions and disruptions all that much more surprising and affecting.

not that i was alive then but that seems like an accurate reading of why the spielberg films are so incredible. that said, it's not a rule. donnie darko, for example, seemed to pull off the same era and setting just as well and it was made 20 years later.

just got home from super 8, i really enjoyed myself! not crazy about the action material, but i thought the kids were very good, especially elle.

just saw this, and pretty much loved it, as did K. wasnt crazy about the ending but it is growing on me. 100% fun tho, and strikingly warm-hearted. kid actors are pretty much totally awesome across the board, and i havent thought that about a movie in a long long time.

that scene w/ elle practicing zombie was fucking amazing

If Spielberg had set them all in the fifties then that would have been lost to one degree or another (whereas Raiders is of course MEANT to be nostalgic escapism etc.), so Abrams wanting to recapture the feel of these films by setting them in the time they were done strikes me as unnecessarily quixotic.

I don't know, Raiders is just Spielberg and Lucas riffing on pulpy stuff they saw as kids. And for Abrams, the pulpy stuff he saw as a kid was ET, Goonies, Red Dawn, and Close Encounters. So it's kind of the same thing in a way.

yeah the zombie thing was fucking fantastic

Zombie practice clip was show on Leno. I didn't see it in context, but even stripped of context it was amazing.

also did anyone else think of naomi watts' audition in mulholland dr. when elle first acted in the train scene

oh, ok, this guy did: http://cinema-scope.com/wordpress/cs-online/all-about-steve-super-8/

i mostly agree w/ his complaints. but luckily the monster isn't the movie.

yeah the movie-making stuff was all great. the rest was just OK.

Was I alone in thinking the opening felt really rushed? Starting w/ mom's funeral felt like easy pathos + ensured we never got to know much about the other kids.

("gag me with a spoon" is clearly from the 80s)

it was popularized by zappa's "valley girl" single in 1982, but the slang itself goes back (at least) to the mid-70s in california.

wait is gag me with a spoon ever said in this movie, because if so i missed it

also i thought that the inclusion of the director kid referring to everything as "mint" for a day and then never using it again was a great clever subtle nod to the fleeting obsessive adolescent use of slang. felt weirdly honest and accurate.

E.T. is clearly too good for this (and most other movies about growing up); Goonies feels like a better comparision. The manipulations are a little different because of the nostalgia, but most of the key emotional beats felt earned enough. The "I got you" at the end was a nice play. Loved the warzone scene with the tanks misfiring and the footage from the '60's lab.

Also I feel like the MPAA should have played along and given this film a PG just for old time's sake.

I have a huge nostalgic soft spot for Goonies, but come on, this is like a 1000x better movie.

And as much as ET is a classic, it's also kind of a bunch of sad-sack jesus muppet bullshit.

the kids were all really likable in this movie. I really liked this.

yeah this is good. or, well - it's a really good period coming of age movie, and a really crummy monster movie. i almost completely checked out during the third act. i dont think the movie earned the heartfelt ending, and it felt undercut by the cynical, perfunctory half hour of explosions and chase scenes that preceded it. but then the movie in the end credits reminds you what you liked so much about the first 2/3 of the movie and you feel alright.

there were all these mismatched story beats though that made me feel like he should've just hacked off the monster stuff... all these important character resolution scenes end up having no punch because they're crammed into the frantic attention-deflating climax

abrams does have talent as a director, but all the spielberg-worship also invites some unfavorable comparisons - there had to be like 20 cheap jump scares in this movie and i dont think he really knows how to lay off when he should. that's the kind of thing he can get better at though.

still, i liked it a lot! the kids were amazing. deputy dad was great too.

Abrams toes this really awkward line between inspiration and mere hyper-competence. Like, he'll stumble on the occasional good idea, but inevitably houses it amidst a host of outright compromises to maximize commercial appeal. Which is fine, I suppose, except that I've left every single one of his projects feeling totally unsatisfied, if generally entertained, like eating a new breakfast cereal or candy bar that doesn't quite pay off on its billed promise. I mean, LOL at the brief groundswell of support for his Star Trek deserving a best picture nomination. Best Star Trek movie nomination, maybe.

i am in total agreement with you on that metaphor plus my feeling is that breakfast cereal and candy bars are not really foods that grown-ups should eat

^depressing

**SPOILER**

He never kisses her, WTF?? That was my only real investment in this film, and clasping hands doesn't cut it.

Loved the first act. A brilliantly faithful homage. The monster story never grabbed me. I was looking for the door at 1 hr 30 min.

it felt undercut by the cynical, perfunctory half hour of explosions and chase scenes that preceded it.

Might have been smarter for them to release this after Transformers 3, as a balm.

yeah this is good. or, well - it's a really good period coming of age movie, and a really crummy monster movie. i almost completely checked out during the third act. i dont think the movie earned the heartfelt ending, and it felt undercut by the cynical, perfunctory half hour of explosions and chase scenes that preceded it. but then the movie in the end credits reminds you what you liked so much about the first 2/3 of the movie and you feel alright.

otfm. ^says it better than i ever could.

i think they still could have made this a decent monster movie AND a decent coming of age movie. it's not impossible to balance the two! just not sure abrams is up to it. when you make a monster movie you gotta believe in your monster.

I give this movie a solid A.

I feel like this is the new kind of pg-13 kid's movie. In the old days there wasn't as much of that kind of scariness, blood, death and language but Abrams found the perfect amount of pushing the boundaries for a "kid's movie". All the flashy attack and destruction scenes were 2nd chair to the characters and their plot. I never felt that the monster stuff was the main plot because the character plots were what kept me going and enjoying the movie at every second. And maybe I should be thanking Spielberg for this. I couldn't help but enjoy everything the kids said and did in this movie. The flashy monster stuff was either icing on the cake or a bit on the boring side near the end of the movie. More good flashy stuff than boring stuff.

but like I said, any boringness in the monster stuff didn't matter because that plot was 2nd chair to really good character plots, that were handled amazingly well.

another thing about the monster stuff: because it was 1979, or whatever, the cheesiness settled 100 times better.

and really, the scenery, cinematography and wardrobe was excellent. the special effects were pretty good even if we've all grown accustomed to these kind of effects.

re: "language" I loved the scene where Chubby comes into Charles' room and calls Charles a pussy in front of Alice, then apologizes to Alice who blushes, smiles, and says it's ok. Quaint.

The only potential anachronism that stood out for me was a mention of Rubik's Cube, and it turns out that indeed it existed but went international in 1980.

Thinking of an 11-year-old sneaking in to see this versus sneaking in to see The Dark Knight.

I saw this tonight and I'm so bummed...I really didn't like it very much at all.

I get the Spielberg homage stuff, and that plays for a while. But the kids for the most part end up being caricatures of kids, and the story ends up being a caricature of a story, and even the decade becomes a caricature with all the stupid throways about walkmans and overnight turnaround of film and whatever.

I dunno. I guess I was just disappointed in Abrams, like THAT's what you took away from Spielberg? I grew up with those Spielberg movies too, and surely the one thing you walk away from all of those with is HEART. And it just felt like they were right at the edge of digging into those characters and then just sort of went, ah fuck it lets have some explosions and shit.

Oh and I usually love Giacchino's scores but this one felt like some brainhammering cross between Doctor Who's Murray Gold and Danny Elfman.

I will probably see it again because Mr Veg is keen to go, and I really do hope my reading changes with a second view. Because I deliberately didn't read about the movie or anything hoping that I would be swept away in it all.

I feel like Stan in the latest 'Growing Up' episode of Southpark, where everything he sees and hears just suddenly turns to shit. ;_;

^^^^I had the exact same thought re: Stan while listening to friends rave about it, though I didn't hate it.

I liked parts of it, the movienaking was great & the little film at the end was rad, and I love Coach Eric Taylor as Dad...but by about halfway in, I was just tagging along, waiting for it to be over.

I was distractef that actor who played Fanning's dad..he was the astronaut that went blind in Deep Impact. He's such a cornball.

ehh

I have a huge nostalgic soft spot for Goonies, but come on, this is like a 1000x better movie.

― unmetalled world (wk), Saturday, June 11, 2011 8:32 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark

idk is it? the girl in this was great, but the boys not so much. it's pretty hard to compare a movie you loved aged five with a new movie, though.

and surely the one thing you walk away from all of those with is HEART

eew, no thanks. I'll take Abrams' take instead.

idk is it? the girl in this was great, but the boys not so much. it's pretty hard to compare a movie you loved aged five with a new movie, though.

I don't know, it's definitely scarier, better crafted, has better action, fx, etc. It's a different era, so obviously an unfair comparison, but yeah, I think if both of these movies came out in 1985, super 8 would have blown our fucking minds and goonies would have looked corny as hell. so in that sense it's "better".

it is scarier and has better fx, sure. i can barely remember the plot of the goonies and i've probably seen it twenty times. the sfx of 'super 8' would indeed have blown minds in 1985, but that's sort of cheating. in general it's (completely openly) the most derivative movie of the year, which again by most standards makes it a lesser achievement. it's just that it's probably better than 'transformers 3d'.

'super 8' is corny as fuck tho, i dunno if there's even any difference on that score.

what im saying is, the goonies r good enough

it is scarier and has better fx, sure. i can barely remember the plot of the goonies and i've probably seen it twenty times. the sfx of 'super 8' would indeed have blown minds in 1985, but that's sort of cheating. in general it's (completely openly) the most derivative movie of the year, which again by most standards makes it a lesser achievement.

I dunno, I guess I'm just trying to judge by Spielberg standards, where being derivative isn't really a bad thing, and great fx are kind of the whole point. And basically just "would 12 year old kids think this is really cool." And if that's the objective, then comparing stuff across different decades is not really cheating, because it's the way a kid's brain works anyway. Kids still think the original star wars is cool, but probably wouldn't watch something that's in black and white. By their standards, Raiders of the Lost Ark is just an objectively better movie than some 20s Zorro movie or something.

And also, it seems fitting to me to judge this movie by those standards, since it's essentially about kids and how movies shape their perception of the world.

i can't judge it by a 12-year-old's standards because im not 12. otoh i can't judge 'the goonies' by adult standards because im not an adult because it's part of y childhood.

i don't get why it turns all gooey about the alien at the end. he was a real jerk.

he just wants to go home (ET)

did E.T. slaughter a buncha motherfuckers first?

i can't judge it by a 12-year-old's standards because im not 12. otoh i can't judge 'the goonies' by adult standards because im not an adult because it's part of y childhood.

this is really weird to me. I don't know how you could enjoy or critically evaluate movies then. but I guess this kind of boils down to a popist/rockist thing.

did E.T. slaughter a buncha motherfuckers first?

no, which is why Abrams > Spielberg

idk how poetic the ending of E.T. woulda been if he was standing over a litter of entrails as he boarded his ship...

I think if both of these movies came out in 1985, super 8 would have blown our fucking minds and goonies would have looked corny as hell. so in that sense it's "better".

― unmetalled world (wk), Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:04 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

don't think this is a sensible measure of anything. most pre-teens today would prefer transformers 2 to anything made in the 80s, but that's hardly a strong mark in tranny 2's favor. if you honestly think this is a better flick than E.T., then cool, but appealing to the imaginary tastes of imaginary 12-year-olds isn't a terribly strong argument in its favor.

I think calling Super 8 derivative and being upset about that, and or being upset about the corny factor is a sign that you weren't watching the movie for what it is on first screening. I mean I guess I wasn't anticipating this movie nor new much about it going in, but as soon as the whole gang of '79 kids story started rolling I Got It. This movie wasn't trying to do anything new; it was perfecting an old classic movie formula (or two). And that is why derivativeness and cornyness can be ignored like a single grain of salt.

But I did like all the kids. I did like that firestarter kid was nothing more than firestarter kid and wuss kid was nothing more than wuss kid. And the main kids had more diverse, uncharicture like qualities that held them up as real people (and maybe I relate better with quiet, brave dude than other people)

and lots of laughs for me

i loved the kids! the main kid and elle fanning were obviously excellent, but even just casting that Haverchuck-looking kid with the glasses purely for his role in the kids monster movie was genius. "it's my job!" chubby movie filmmaker kid and Bad News Bears pyromaniac kid were also fantastic.

i can't possibly take the argument seriously that this movie isn't much better than ET and Goonies. I have fond nostalgia for them too, but this was a much better story, direction, script, better acted, even if it had its own flaws and was the third act dragged a bit by being so overstuffed. opening train scene alone deserves major props for good direction

agree 100% w/Lorax

if i was jj abrams i'm not sure i'd want to provoke direct comparisons to richard donner or chris columbus, nevermind spielberg (or joe dante). this was adequate in its best moments, which were fleeting and few.

don't think this is a sensible measure of anything. most pre-teens today would prefer transformers 2 to anything made in the 80s, but that's hardly a strong mark in tranny 2's favor. if you honestly think this is a better flick than E.T., then cool, but appealing to the imaginary tastes of imaginary 12-year-olds isn't a terribly strong argument in its favor.

Yeah, but adults reading the movie as an adult while comparing it to nostalgic, romanticized memories of movies they watched 25 years ago aren't really making any kind of credible criticism against it either.

I mean, FFS Richard Donner actually committed this to film...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLqpxpvgVsg

not here to defend the goonies. beloved as it may be, it isn't much of a film.

i can't possibly take the argument seriously that this movie isn't much better than ET and Goonies.

― Nhex, Wednesday, June 15, 2011 7:13 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i can't possibly take seriously any argument that lumps ET and goonies together as though they were a single goalpost. one's among the best kids'/family films of its era, the other is fondly-remembered crap.

The Goonies is so g-d terrible.

it definitely doesn't hold up

I found Goonies v. shrill and annoying even as a kid.

i hate you all

:'-(

I found Goonies v. shrill and annoying even as a kid.

― You Post on ILX (Simon H.), Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:07 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

YOU'RE shrill and annoying

^Film crit debate of the decade

i can't possibly take seriously any argument that lumps ET and goonies together as though they were a single goalpost. one's among the best kids'/family films of its era ever made, the other is fondly-remembered crap.

i prefer the goonies to e.t.

when is the goonies 3D conversion release

i hate you all

otm

i can't possibly take seriously any argument that lumps ET and goonies together as though they were a single goalpost

one may be significantly better than the other but the connection is evidently the conceptual richness and imaginative strength both share - thinking of the coolest creepiest bits in the latter e.g. bone organ, pirate ship skeletons...stuff that counters the corniness so well and if it isn't quite top tier for 80s adventure/fantasy it's comfortably second.

i prefer the goonies to e.t.

You are seriously an idiot.

they're both kids films i haven't seen since i was a kid. that was my view then, and i'm not about to rewatch fuckin' 'e.t.' to decide if i was right.

why not?

Oh man The Goonies Octopus scene. I was watching it on TV once and that scene was kept in the cut they were showing and I seriously thought I was going nuts like THIS WAS NOT IN THE MOVIE BEFORE!?

Henry - E.T. is really good.

why not?

― (.づ☀‿☀)づ ~da post-modernist struggle~ (.づ☀‿☀)づ (Princess TamTam), Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:22 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

they're both kids films

kind of like the rainy melancholy oregon vibe of 'goonies' over wherever e.t. is set.

i really hate the creature e.t. anyway, it isn't just that.

Where is ET set? California?

You hate ET? I am starting to worry you might be dead on the inside.

i teared up over 'the west wing' the other day, so something in there feels something.

Yep, California. Actual filming location for the house was in Tujunga.

and i'm not about to rewatch fuckin' 'e.t.' to decide if i was right.

You don't have to. I'll tell you right now you're fucking wrong.

x-posts

ha

I can only watch E.T. every couple years because I start tearing up when he goes missing and pretty much cry straight through to the end. The last bits where he reunites with his family and leaves? FORGET IT.

^^^ Yes. And I'm nearly 42 fuckin' years old.

It's an extremely emotional experience for me! I watched it a couple years ago with my mother and I was a wreck and she was like "What the hell is wrong with you?!" and I was blubbering and trying to explain, "Leave *sob* *sob* family *sob* *sob* Eliot!! *sob* It's *sob* sad *sob* when pe *sob* people *sob* *sob* aliens *sob* leaaave *sob* *sob* *sob* he loves him! *sob*" saaaaaaaaaad.

It's a radiant movie. The Goonies is subhuman.

Love this look at E.T. from Jim Emerson, esp this tidbit from the comments:

E.T.'s sigh as he (he?) embraces Elliott (in the shot at the top of the page) is almost unbearably moving to me. Who says effects (not CGI) can't act -- especially if they have Debra Winger doing the voice work?

It's totally almost unbearably moving. I always forget that Winger did the voice. That's still so strange to me every time I ram reminded of it. My parents just moved out of my childhood home and during the process of cleaning out the basement I found an awesome E.T. doll that I'm pretty sure could be worth something but I think I'll hang onto it.

Sorry to hijack thread btw. I didn't realize I so many BIG THOUGHTS on E.T.. Ok, maybe I did realize that.

You and me both. I first saw it when it came out in 1982, when I was 12 years old. My mother had already seen it on a date, so I went to see it *by myself.* Here I was, a 12 year old kid, living in a small town, with divorced parents, kind of a nerd (I played lol D&D all the time), very insecure and quiet, big sci-fi nut -- it was like THE perfect movie at THE perfect moment for me.

aww

i like goonies and et. i also liked this.

sorry guys

give me time tho i am sure i can find something beloved by many to hate on

Also, I still totes have one of these: http://www.etsy.com/listing/45046373/1982-et-plush-doll

http://ny-image2.etsy.com/il_570xN.138210742.jpg

The playground at the end of E.T. was down the street from our house in Northridge.

It's really easy to hate on ET, by the way, but only if you watch the CGI-ed up revision that animates ET and replaces the guns with walkie talkies.

(the one I found is this one: http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/380/758/308/tnOw.jpg)

suggesting suggest ban campaigns for all the goonies haters

Who SBs the SBmen?

You just got a suggest ban for suggesting I get suggest banned for suggesting The Goonies should be banned.

For the record I do not hate The Goonies and don't really understand how anyone could hate anything that fun. That said, it's no E.T..

for chrissakes the pirate is named ONE-EYED WILLIE. I MEAN COME ON.

I am still mad there was never a Goonies-themed flume ride

For the record I do not hate The Goonies and don't really understand how anyone could hate anything that fun. That said, it's no E.T..

The Goonies is no The Room.

the goonies is also a movie aimed at 11 year olds

I have never seen The Goonies.

it's no andrei rublev

Andrei Tarkovsky is no 11-year-old

well he's not anything now

I share all of ENBB's emotion for E.T. Just thinking about that movie makes me well up a little.

And PFFFFFLLLBBBT to Goonies haters. I agree 100% that it is no E.T. but it is fun and great and I have rewatched it many more times than I care to admit.

E.T. was the first time I heard someone use the word "penis" in a movie

in a pejorative sense

I was busy seeing stuff like The Brother from Another Planet when I was in junior high and The Goonies was out. Never seen it.

toot toot

idg why they had joe commune with the alien in this at the climactic moment--the alien was a total asshole up to that point.

jj abrams seems to think he should be doing action/adventure/espionage/scifi/suspense movies and tv, but i think what he is really good at is melodrama + domestic realism tbh.

spent most of the movie wishing i was rewatching e.t. i will do that asap.

i love coach taylor btw

also the lil fat director

also omg ron eldard! what ever happened to him? dreamy imo

Like Matt Zoller Seitz sez:

But there are other, more specific references. Like Spielberg in "E.T." -- and pretty much any fantasy or horror director with a smidge of common sense -- Abrams keeps the "Super 8" creature shrouded in shadow or strategically hidden by foliage or bits of architecture, then gradually reveals it. But his direction also leads viewers to believe that the creature is brutish and menacing, or at least creepy, even though it is later revealed as highly intelligent and essentially benevolent. (E.T. is nonviolent to his core, but the tormented alien in "Super 8" has been abused by government scientists since the '60s, is way pissed about it, and has a right to be.)

i guess

Yeah the communication between joe & alien seemed a little forced. Like he's cocooning & chowing down on humans left and right and then...I don't really get the connection. I mean I get it, and I like the idea, but it's just so fast and DING! everything's better now, bye Mr Alien...it felt tacked on. Or yeah, they spent too much time building up the monster to be A and then suddenly reveal him to be B but there's no time to build B so [music swells] THE END

Avatar also was about threatening but ultimately highly intelligent and essentially benevolent aliens.

I don't know, I mean, lions and bears will eat people if they want, but I don't harbor any ill will toward them for it. I don't really get the complaint.

wk how old are you?

the whole thing about the science teacher being with the alien even if he would die made me wonder if the alien could recognize the kid through his relation with the science teacher. and when the kid talked to the alien it felt like he should of been saying "you want to go home (and I could even help you)" but I don't think he ever mentioned that. and because the kid didn't say the most convincing things to assure his survival, I'm a little surprised the alien let him off so easy and maybe the alien just had a soft spot for the kid being so compassionate and pure or whatever

*spoilers all up in this thread*

it was set up pretty clearly that the alien was smarter than us and was cool with ppl until the evil labcoats probed him or whatever we do to aliens. So being more intelligent than us he probably recognized that Disney kid /= Labcoats. The real problem is that the alien design was straight out of Avatar's blocky creature playbook.

It seemed very Transformer-y to me. I did like the dog/king kong qualities in the face, the breath blowing the kid's hair...but I kept expecting it to make robotic movement noises (I didn't even like those stupid fucking movies either, it annoyed me that I kept having them in my head while I was watching this)

I was busy seeing stuff like The Brother from Another Planet when I was in junior high and The Goonies was out. Never seen it.

― 27 Dresses, 13 Assassins (Eazy), Friday, June 17, 2011 12:54 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

sweet brag bro

Like Matt Zoller Seitz sez:
But there are other, more specific references. Like Spielberg in "E.T." -- and pretty much any fantasy or horror director with a smidge of common sense -- Abrams keeps the "Super 8" creature shrouded in shadow or strategically hidden by foliage or bits of architecture, then gradually reveals it. But his direction also leads viewers to believe that the creature is brutish and menacing, or at least creepy, even though it is later revealed as highly intelligent and essentially benevolent. (E.T. is nonviolent to his core, but the tormented alien in "Super 8" has been abused by government scientists since the '60s, is way pissed about it, and has a right to be.)
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Friday, June 17, 2011 2:35 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

Like Spielberg in "E.T." -- and pretty much any fantasy or horror director with a smidge of common sense -- Abrams keeps the "Super 8" creature shrouded in shadow or strategically hidden -- boring cliche. it worked in 'cloverfield' but here it felt like a self-conscious by-the-book thing. everyone knows you're not supposed to show the creature, so JJA doesn't.

lil disney kid knows or thinks he knows that the alien has been abused, but the girl, whom the alien has cocooned and will probably kill, doesn't. whatever: the telepathic communciation bit and the pat 'now the alien is free i've got over my mother dying three months ago' were just cheap -- even i can see e.t. trounces this movie sentimentality-wise.

also omg ron eldard! what ever happened to him? dreamy imo

― horseshoe, Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:26 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

haha, i was definitely contemplating the return of american-tim-roth-guy during the movie

lil disney kid knows or thinks he knows that the alien has been abused, but the girl, whom the alien has cocooned and will probably kill, doesn't

+ implication the girl is abused (at least emotionally) at home

boring cliche. it worked in 'cloverfield' but here it felt like a self-conscious by-the-book thing. everyone knows you're not supposed to show the creature, so JJA doesn't.

yeah, pretty much. how you handle the monster should depend on what you intend to do with it, 'reveal it as little as possible' shouldnt be treated as bible law - in a case like this, where we're supposed to feel bad for it in the end, it's undercut by the fact that the movie hasn't allowed us to get to know the monster! people forget that the reason we didnt see much of the shark in Jaws is because spielberg had no confidence in the monster - when he saw this crappy special effect being dragged around by a speedboat, he was just like 'jesus i cant let the audience get a look at this piece of crap' - and it worked for Jaws because the audience already freaking knows what sharks look like, we can fill in the blanks. that kind of thing works for a movie where the monster's only job is to terrify people, but not one where you're supposed to buy into a sensitive 'hes just so abused ;_;' moment.

The short commune scene was weak but the scare scenes were fun and the monster special effects were good. The monster was never my main focus of the film. The real climax was when the kids reunited with their fathers. I still give the movie a solid A.

Princess OTaM OTaM

I really really liked this. I could complain about the last 10 minutes or so, but, nah, the rest of the flick kept me so thoroughly entertained that it seems like nitpicking to pull it apart at that point.

i liked this because it had a good cast and the smalltown domestic stuff was really good but the entire last third or so was p much garbage for all reasons listed itt

i did really like the zombie movie that played over the end credits tho

I don't know if I'd even hate on the last third, just maybe the last ten minutes. I thought the monster reveal was done a LOT better here than in Cloverfield at least. As a lot of people have pointed out, its pretty much impossible to live up to audience expectations when the monster gets revealed and I thought Abrams did an admirable job. I really wish this might kind of set the template for summer popcorn movies though, because I like this so much better than the fast-cut fight, fast-cut fight scene, chase scene, repeat formula of like Transformers or whatever. The kids were well cast, there were some genuine lols that didn't feel forced, actually suspenseful at a few points - pretty much what I want when I go see a summertime blockbuster flick.

for chrissakes the pirate is named ONE-EYED WILLIE. I MEAN COME ON.

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Thursday, 16 June 2011 17:31 (1 week ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

HOLY SHIT HOW DID I NEVER GET THIS BEFORE?

Nice look at some of the effects work in the movie: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/headlines/An-Explosive-Train-Wreck-and-a-Trick-of-the-Light-for-Super-8_13257.html

Who would've thought filming two kids walking in front of a movie projector would be so tough?

This was pretty good, though like many here I felt there were a lot of bad decisions in the last half hour -- in many ways it seemed rushed at that point, maybe a necessary price for the pleasantly easy-going pace of the rest of the movie. i mean i'm into the way they include this whole multi-scene arc of dad breaking out of military prison, getting himself to evac zone, picking up elle fanning's dad, and getting back into down -- even though this has no relevance to the plot, there's this nice moment at the end where dads are hugging kids and kids are all "we love you dads so we're going to allow you to feel like you rescued us even though we kind of did it ourselves and all you did was show up, but nice job, seriously guys, we appreciate the effort"

re alien -- reason for cocooning people totally unclear -- this is the kind of unexplained creepiness I usually LIKE from JJA (e.g. Cloverfield) but it didn't fit with this movie where creature has explicitly presented backstory. would have liked to see more done with the mindmeld -- e.g. are we to understand that, even after the alien leaves, its psychic traces are imprinted on them as they were on the science teacher? that's a nice gloss on the "coming of age" movie -- that coming of age consists of having slimy alien mental patterns forced into fusion with your own.

liked also that alien basically didn't give a shit about people, just wanted what it wanted. not in any way "benevolent" as zoller seitz says above. surely it lets joe go not because he's like "dude understands me and is sensitive" but just because he's like "ok, mind melded with him and unlike the air force dude there is no chance this guy's a threat to my spaceship so no need to bother with him." liked the way the alien takes off and is like "oh by the way i won't be needing the rest of this water tower so i'ma drop it on some more soldiers."

I wonder if I'd have crushed on Elle Fanning as much as I did on Martha Plimpton. I dunno, Marth's character seemed much sassier.

Plus Super 8 has nothing as iconic as the Truffle Shuffle.

It's not as funny as the Goonies - some of the kids in Super 8 have kind of indistinct personas and don't get enough play. Really enjoyed this anyway, including all the ridiculous and explosions and stuff towards the end but the last 10 minutes or so was like a particularly half-arsed episode of Dr Who.

Actually it really is pretty much exactly the kind of cop-out ending Dr Who writers throw in when they can't work out how to end a story.

idg why they had joe commune with the alien in this at the climactic moment--the alien was a total asshole up to that point.

The point was exactly that Joe said it needn't be such an asshole: stop dwelling on past tragedies and move on with your life. Awful things happen but that doesn't mean you have to turn awful because of them. (Before the mindmeld the alien was bent on revenge for mankind for what the army did to it, but after it it just finishes the ship and flies away.) So basically alien = Joe's dad, get it? I guess the movie could've developed this theme a bit more.

could have left that shitty rushed nonsense out altogether tbh.

Tam Tam otm, everyone else annoyed by the 'spielberg 101' last third also otm.

Looked great and the kids were good, though.

I want the whole movie to be the actual kids movie they show at the end. Best part of the whole thing.

O_o

yipes!

good prosecutor zing at the end

According to court records and contemporary news accounts, Murphy, then a 19-year-old college student with acting aspirations, was already out on bail awaiting arraignment on charges of molesting the boy, whom he had met while working as a camp counselor. He disguised himself as a woman in a white dress and wig to kidnap the child.

I mean, what the shit?

thats on some bugs bunny