EW's Top 25 Film/Television Contributions to Science Fiction

[Connavar]

I dislike him mostly cause he opened way for the stupid,empty blockbuster movies.


He killed the era of Scorcese,Pacino,De Niro with Jaws......

 

[Urien]

I tend to disagree, I think Spielberg's body of work is overall exceptional. And if one most have a blockbuster then Jaws is a truly excellent example of one.

Does he make the odd duff film? Well certainly, who doesn't? But he is responsible for some of the most enduring cinematic images and movies, he has been much imitated and has shown terrific range from Jurassic Park to Schindler's List.

 

[Connavar]

But also he showed special effects can sell movies better than good stories and acting.


Today's hollywood is his legacy. Special effects are the masters of hollywood.

Sure he did some good movies but he did more damage than good IMO.

 

[McMurphy]

Hmm. Yes, it is a bit uninspired, though a few of their entries would make my own list (Blade Runner, The Terminator, Brazil, X-Files & Alien). Have to agree with the majority on ET; I've always found it far too cutesy and saccharine to be taken seriously.

I'd have liked to see a few foreign films in there, too: maybe Akira, Ghost In The Shell and (as others have mentioned) Abre los Ojos. And although I know it often divides opinion, I'd have liked to see Tron on there; it's flawed, but I think it's an important film nonetheless.

I must disagree with the sentiment towards ET and Spielberg in general. Considering ET is a Jesus figure and being pacifist is a central theme of the film and book, it would only make sense that ET would be a healer, who dies and is resurrected. As a film, it was a reaction to the trend of alien related film making that bore the likes of Alien during its time. There was a conscious effort with ET to derail the notion that aliens can be only seen as sources of fear, the embodiment of the terrible unknown. That said, ET should be on a list involving the last twenty-five years of science fiction related entertainment.

As should Jurassic Park, another immense milestone by Spielberg. Prior to Jurassic Park, the body of dinosaur related science fiction was, overall, quite bad, yet it, by evidence of the repeated efforts, held a certain level of interest with audiences. Jurassic Park marked a transitional period in how science fiction ideas were visualized on the big screen.


I do agree with the suggested inclusion of anime. That venue of film and television science fiction has grown rapidly in both interest and acceptance with Western audiences in the last ten years, and there should be, at least, a figure of representation on the list.

 

[clovis-man]

But also he showed special effects can sell movies better than good stories and acting.


Today's hollywood is his legacy. Special effects are the masters of hollywood.

Sure he did some good movies but he did more damage than good IMO.

No, no! You're thinking of George Lucas!

(a quote from iansales): The problem with Spielberg is that he tells the audience how to react in his films, and I would sooner figure out how to react myself. I'll admit I do like AI, but bits of it are pretty naff - the Flesh Fair, for example - and I'm not sure which is Kubrick and which is Spielberg. Munich... tried to play so fair, it ended up neither condemning nor condoning Israel's behaviour. Good films have something to say, and it's up to the viewer to decide whether or not they agree.

Re Munich, if he left the issue in an equivocal state, doesn't that fulfill your stated desire for filmmakers to let the audience judge? Actually I thought the message in this one was that if your sole motive is revenge, then you are doomed to become the thing that you hate.

But my own opinion on filmmaking (or just story telling, for that matter) is that the creator of the story should be more than just a messenger. (S)he should have a point of view and the characters and plot shoud reflect that. There's usually a reason that you have empathy with some characters and/or aspects of a tale and not with others: The author/director wanted it that way. You don't have to beat me over the head with it, but a gentle nudge is okay. Some would say that Spielberg is too heavy handed. I find that the attention to detail that he displays outweighs any such considerations as a rule. YMMV of course.

Now to make a feeble attempt to not totally highjack the thread, I would place Spielburg's 1985 Amazing Stories episode, The Mission in the pantheon of filmed fantasy tales that are worth the effort to track down. If nothing else, it took two young actors, Kevin Costner and Kiefer Sutherland, and showed that they could convincingly play a role without benefit of hubris and studio hype.

Jim

 

[Dave]

I haven't seen Abre los Ojos, though I mean to, and since that inspired Vanilla Sky, you are correct that it should be the one to make the list. Vanilla Sky isn't a direct remake though, the director said it was an "extension", and I thought Abre los Ojos was a short film.

Much the same applies to Twelve Monkeys too. I have seen the French short film which inspired that, but there is much more in Twelve Monkeys.

As for A.I. we have had a discussion before about which parts of it were Spielberg and which parts were Kubrick. It is very easy to tell the difference, and I don't like the Spielberg additions. Having said that Jurassic Park should be on the list, and I see what McMurphy means about the reasons for E.T. being there.

I also forgot about Predator which I just saw again on TV.

If the list was really the most influential films of the last 25 years, then it should include those foreign shorts and the animé, and it should lose the blockbusters and franchises. It is just one of those lists that they always have this time of year. Who voted for it? Who decided? I expect that we here are more qualified to make those judgements than them. It produced an interesting thread though.

 

[Tillane]

As a film, it was a reaction to the trend of alien related film making that bore the likes of Alien during its time. There was a conscious effort with ET to derail the notion that aliens can be only seen as sources of fear, the embodiment of the terrible unknown.

Absolutely agree - but in my opinion Spielberg had already done that, and done it better, with Close Encounters five years earlier (though obviously that film wouldn't qualify for EW's list). My opinion of ET is simply that, an opinion; I know what Spielberg set out to do - I just didn't enjoy it.

I'd entirely agree with Jurassic Park's inclusion on the list, too. It's a landmark, ground-breaking film that spawned a load of inferior sequels and cash-in monster movies (Godzilla et al). And it was damn good fun, too.

 

[Pyan]

My personal opinion is that the only good thing about lists like this is that they open up debate on how non-inclusive and wrong-headed they are...

 

[McMurphy]

It seems that EW's list only complicated matters by feeling the need to infuse both television and film contributions within the same list.

Surely, there has been enough notable marks separately, even when considering just Western publications, to merit two different lists.

If there was going to be a revised list that centers itself around the 25 years of science fiction televised to Western audiences, I imagine that X-Files would remain well noted.

 

[McMurphy]

My personal opinion is that the only good thing about lists like this is that they open up debate on how non-inclusive and wrong-headed they are...

Shhh! You are going to spoil everything!

 

[iansales]

I haven't seen Abre los Ojos, though I mean to, and since that inspired Vanilla Sky, you are correct that it should be the one to make the list. Vanilla Sky isn't a direct remake though, the director said it was an "extension", and I thought Abre los Ojos was a short film.

No, it's not a short film - 117 mins according to IMDB. I don't know in what respect Cameron Crowe thought Vanilla Sky was an "extension" but it wasn't in terms of story...

 

[Connavar]

No, it's not a short film - 117 mins according to IMDB. I don't know in what respect Cameron Crowe thought Vanilla Sky was an "extension" but it wasn't in terms of story...

What did you expect him to say ? "eh this movie is nothing new just a direct remake of the spanish movie "