*** Official "E.T.: THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Carl Johnson]

While ET was popular back in the day it has never had a cult following like Star Wars so comparing the box office receipts is unrealistic (can anybody point me to ET's version of theforce.net ? ). Marketing is another factor to consider, as everybody and their grandmother knew about the Star Wars rerelease but if not for HTF I wouldn't have known about ET's attempted comeback.

 

[Dwayne]

Well, one theory may be that ET is not a film that demands to be seen on the big screen like Star Wars.

If 2001 went into wide release next week, and wound up making less than Star Wars SE, there is no way you can tell me that 2001 doesn't demand to be seen on the big screen like Star Wars.

I've been a fan of Star Wars for a long time, twenty-five years to be exact. But I could never make that statement. I agree with John that E.T. demands to be seen on the big screen. May I even suggest that all films demand the best presentation.

There are quite a few factors why Star Wars SE made more money than the re-release of ET. First off, Star Wars has a much, much larger following than ET. This following is composed largely of males from adolescence up. Ironically, this same demographic stole alot of thunder away from E.T. when they went to see Blade 2 instead. I haven't seen the "new" E.T. YET, since my girlfriend wanted to other films instead (Ice Age, Blade 2, and we just got back from Panic Room). Many people cannot justify spending money at the theaters on something they have already seen before, especially when there is a healthy amount of titles to choose from.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

It's not 1982 all over again where everybody's gonna have a plush E.T doll in their bedroom.

The weekend this film came out, my family went to Toys 'R Us. In the 5 minutes we were by the E.T. merchandise, three families swooped up the 2-1/2 foot E.T. stuffed toy to my surprise.

Yes, I also thought that the E.T. plush dolls went out 20 years ago.

~Edwin

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Carl,

you are SERIOUSLY underestimating this film! It is one of the great american classics of all time, it doesn't need a fancy website or any of that other stuff to tell me that.

Guy's, please, the last thing I want to see is a 'Star Wars' vs 'E.T.' pissing contest. 'E.T.' means too much to me, and to a lot of people to have that happen.

 

[Steve_Ch]

Star Wars is unique, I don't think there's going to be another one like it for a long time. It does not mean I think it's a better movie than ET. Kind of like Titanic (which I did not care for), if a movie did not gross anywhere near Titanic does not mean it's failure (case in point, Harry Potter).

 

[Carl Johnson]

I'm not trying to piss on ET or anything like that, I'm just saying that the film has fewer hardcore fans than Star Wars. It's been so many years since I last saw ET that I can't make a reliable statement on the quality of the film. While I like Star Wars it is hardly my favorite movie but in rerelease its box office would likley dwarf any of the titles in my DVD collection.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Also something very major has changed since 97...DVD. The home theater market has started to really affect viewing habits.

And on top of that ET is coming to DVD soon.

And on top of that ET, while a popular film, is not a focal point of American (global even) culture that Star Wars was/is. ET is a great film...Star Wars is an event.

Star Wars is like the "star" of films. Meaning that you have a normal average person and then you have a celebrity. Now the celebrity is also "just a person" like anyone else, perhaps not even as good in many ways as other people. But the celebrity status around that person elevates them and makes them special to others, meaning that if you bump into a stranger at the store, who cares, but bump into Brad Pitt and it's something to talk about.

And to me that's what Star Wars is compared to other good films. It's more famous for being famous than it is for being a good film (it is a great film btw). Thus the great rerelease BO. People enjoyed ET but Star Wars changed our culture. Maybe a full on Raiders rerelease could do pretty well...maybe.

For a good film, ET has done pretty well on rerelease I think. I can't really think of any other film that would do as well on rerelease, not even Titanic (though that might do pretty good too, I'd go see those effects on the big screen again).

 

[Sam Davatchi]

ET's 20th anniversary release has earned a relatively paltry 26 million and will probably finish between 40 and 50 million - nowhere near the astonishing numbers put up by the Star Wars films during 1997.

Why? ET was just as popular as those films when it was released in '82. I guess it just doesn't have the same cultural resonance...

Yes, revisionism. The movie is already out here and personally I’m not going to see it. Also few people that I know have asked me if I’m going to see it “knowing I’m a huge Spielberg and movie fan!), I told them no and explained to quite few of them what’s wrong with the new changes.

 

[Michael Reuben]

There's an article in today's Wall Street Journal (sorry, I don't know an online source) on the box office for E.T.'s re-release. The industry regards it as disappointing. Universal is trying to figure out what happened, since its early tracking projected substantially higher numbers.

I very much doubt that "revisionism" had the slightest thing to do with it. Revisionism is a hot-button issue for an enthusiast's forum like HTF, but some of the most successful re-releases of all time were films that underwent major revision -- notably, the Star Wars trilogy and The Exorcist. OTOH, major revision can't guarantee box office either, as was demonstrated with Apocalypse Now Redux.

Seth Paxton's point about the impact of home theater on theater-going habits is an interesting one. But sometime in the next few years, I'll bet there'll be a hugely successful re-release of some unlikely title just to prove that there still are no hard-and-fast rules.

M.

 

[Malcolm R]

it's early tracking projected substantially higher numbers.

Probably the same "market research" that shows a high demand for movies in P&S. :rolleyes

 

[Robert Crawford]

Probably the same "market research" that shows a high demand for movies in P&S.

There is a high demand for P&S movies! Unfortunately, that's probably factual and those that want OAR (HTF Members) are still in the minority.

Crawdaddy

 

[Dan Brecher]

I went and saw it last night, I thought the experience was overwhelming, the film continues to thrill and move me again and again, more so on the big screen. The revisions, whilst somewhat pointless, do the film no damage in my opinion.
I was shocked though, on the film's 6th day of release in the UK (and whilst kids are on easter break no less), to find that myself and my mother were two of only ten people in the theatre. I continue to scratch my head over the situation. I too don't believe the revisions have a thing to do with it not doing as well as expected. The movie is still E.T, it's lost none of its charm... Has the world grown so cynical not to care about this kind of movie anymore? :frowning:
Dan

 

[Chuck Mayer]

The early tracking line amused me as well. Movie studios love little "sure thing" devices, but sometimes fail to look at intangibles. Which is why I can smile with some satisfaction at my (for once) correct prediction at it's box office.

The "early tracking" did not account for Ice Age, nor did it likely understand that ET, although in the vein and tax bracket as Star Wars, ewas successful for wildly different reasons.

SW, for all it's money, is a cult film. It is a film that changed cinema and movie-going, and it screams THEATER. The experience of ET is more personal. It is not flashy, or cult-based. Most importantly, the experience of ET is primarily internal, and the very same emotions can be found at home. It does not need the theater (even if John Williams music might).

Sad to see ET not do as well, but good to see a studio get it crammed up their arse. I want to see it again, so I am excited for the DVD.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Malcolm R]

Wasn't "E.T." just broadcast on US network television sometime last holiday season? That's just 3-4 months ago.

 

[Evan Case]

Improvements (when not looking at it from a revision angle):
- E.T. bounding away from the Government agents was more visually believable than the "puppet-on-a-dolly-track" original version.
- The mothership seemed more realistic, and didn't have anything extraneous or jarring added onto it.
- The daytime flying scene was nicely cleaned up.
Ok but unneeded:
- The two deleted scenes. Elliot and E.T. in the bathroom was funny ("I'm gonna throw-up now, Mom."), but the fully cgi-ET looked too different from the rest of the film. The (Meet Me in St. Louis inspired?) Halloween scene seemed to come from a completely different film, and added little to the plot.
Bad:
- E.T.'s facial cgi. A bit more expressive, but too "animated" in comparison to the non-cgi E.T. I think E.T.'s screaming face (in the cornfield and when Gertie first sees him) looked better in the original version.
- Phones for guns. Let's accept, for the moment, that the FBI would never pull a gun on a child. The scene still doesn't work. Why in hell would not just one, but dozens, of law men go running around with phones held high and away from their ears? They wouldn't--they'd be attached to their belts. Stupid, stupid, stupid, and it looks terrible too.
Disastrous:
- The dropped shotgun footage. Again, even if we accept the change, this cut has an extremely negative effect on the film. 2-3 seconds of footage is dropped, and that means 2-3 seconds of audio goes too. John Williams' score is part of the audio. One of the greatest bits of tension music (just before they takeoff) is gone, cut off right in the god damn middle! Perhaps it might go unnoticed among those who don't know the film or the score too well, but I do. The entire final section of E.T. easily ranks as one of Williams' greatest moments. Now it's a travesty. I could accept the other changes, but this one single moment soured me enough that I couldn't concentrate on the conclusion--I was too busy silently fuming. That one dropped shot and musical edit means that I'll probably watch the original version exclusively. It's a shame.
That said, E.T. is still a wonderful film, well-worth seeing. Except for the one detrimental moment on which I've ranted enough, the good and bad mostly balance each other out.
Evan
BTW, I too was rather shocked to see only about 10 people at the showing (of course, this was 2pm Easter Sunday so perhaps lots of folks were still at Church or with family).

 

[Chuck C]

Evan for the points you mentioned, that's why I'm glad Spielberg is releasing the original and the 20th on DVD. Still, I believe I'm part of the majority here, i.e. for me, the changes did not make a big impact on the film for me.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I'll bet there'll be a hugely successful re-release of some unlikely title just to prove that there still are no hard-and-fast rules.

I can agree 100% on that.

ET was also hurt by bad scheduling IMO, especially in a year where AOTC and Spider Man are coming and Ice Age was already out. And kids still in school.

Might have done better with a late summer release or just not this year at all.

 

[Feng]

I am not at all surprised at the lackluster box office of E.T. Kids today want to see actions and thrills in a movie. They are not going to watch a movie with a cute alien with no ray gun.

 

[Malcolm R]

Well, I wish I'd been in one of those empty theaters. I finally caught this over the weekend and, of course, my theater was nearly sold out. Full of children who wouldn't sit still, wouldn't keep quiet, wouldn't stop asking questions about anything and everything happening on the screen. Some were getting especially restless and even asking when it was going to be over!
One thing that struck me about the movie (having not seen it in a while), and why so many kids were restless, was how quiet the film is. There are significant parts of the movie, especially in the beginning, where there is no sound at all. No music, nothing. Very odd to those who have become accustomed to the bombastic soundtracks of most modern movies.
And while I didn't find most of the "retouched" effects all that jarring, I did find it humorous that while Spielberg replaced the guns with walkie-talkies, he did not digitally "un-cock" their trigger fingers. Looked a bit odd with a walkie-talkie in hand, but their index fingers crooked around now non-existent triggers.

 

[Kevin M]

One thing that struck me about the movie (having not seen it in a while), and why so many kids were restless, was how quiet the film is.

Yes Mtv strikes another blow at attention spans...........odd that a similar "revisionist" film from a few years ago, The Exorcist: The version you've never seen, was pretty successful for a re-release of a 1973 film and that film had many extended "quiet/slow" scenes. Although I understand that it was R rated & geared towards adults it had a primarily young (20 to 26) audience at the two screenings I saw so I am slightly optimistic that the evil that is Mtv and it's influence have not totally destroyed the enjoyment & appreciation of slower (and more intricate) film storytelling.