I realize that ET made a ton on money in 1982 and the Academy is not a big fan of sequels, but, looking back on it now with 33 years of hindsight, which movie was more worthy of a "Best Picture" nomination - ET or Star Trek II (my vote is Star Trek II) Also, which "Best Supporting Actor" should have been replaced in the nominations by Leonard Nimoy?
shareE.T. was cute and well directed, written but I 'd rather watch The Wrath of Khan any day! I'm not a Trekkie although I do enjoy the original series. I have always loved watching Nimoy play Spock. It is as if this is his real nature.
shareET was a great kids movie. There were really no bad guys and no one dies.
shareAs much as I love WoK (probably top 5, at least top 10), I've never really considered it a movie that could or should have been nominated for an Oscar.
WoK is usually considered the best Star Trek movie, but E.T. is usually considered one of the best sci-fi movies ever made. I'm not a big E.T. fan though. It's a great movie, but ever since I was a little kid I found it so sad, and I don't watch movies to get bummed out. I don't guess it really matters which one got nominated, they were going to lose to Gandhi anyway.
See you guys at the 10 year prison reunion - Ben Richards
They're both good, watchable films. It's a surprisingly difficult question. On one level Star Trek II is just a silly TV space opera *but* it tries to say something about growing old and accepting mortality, whereas the supposedly less silly ET doesn't really have a message.
I've always thought that a good film should be more than just a set of incidents one after the other, but ET really is just a set of things that happen for ninety minutes and then ET goes home, whereas Star Trek II at least has a theme. I'm not convinced that ET deserved a nomination; in its place I would put The King of Comedy, which wasn't nominated, or The World According to Garp, which again wasn't nominated and is problematic but at least memorable, or Frances, I can think of a half-dozen other films that deserved the award more than Trek II or ET.
E.T. isn't without it's messages/themes. The very large Themes section on the film's Wikipedia page probably says it better than I could.
See you guys at the 10 year prison reunion - Ben Richards
[deleted]
If we're comparing sci-fi films released in 1982, we may as well throw in Bladerunner and The Thing... this was a good year for sci-fi :)
sharewrath of khan is a terrific movie, ET is worthless overrated crap.
i told you not to stop the boat. Now lets go. Apocaylpse Now
Trek II really should have been nominated for the following Oscars:
Picture
Director
Screenplay
Actor (Shatner)
Supporting Actor (Montalban)
and all the tech awards - Sound, VFX, score, costumes etc
and for wins:
Supporting actor (Montalban)
VFX (first use of CGI)
score
I've never been a huge ET fan as it was just too cutsie for me even at 11yrs old. Elliot was whiny and annoying. WoK is by far the best Star Trek movie made. And the soundtrack by James Horner is outstanding.
That being said it's still a sequel and really not best picture worthy. ET is a classic, with outstanding effects for its time. It also has an amazing soundtrack by John Williams, one which he holds as one of his 2 favorites. The other being Close Encounters.
So from a motion picture point of view ET is more worthy of Best Picture.
I would much rather watch Wrath Of Khan. In my opinion ET doesnt stand the test of time. I remember seeing it 4 times back in the summer that year and the only movie Ever I saw that much. I think for me it was the thing to do that year being one of the first block busters. To this day it bores me. I remember trying to get my kids to watch it and they didnt like it. Khan just gets better and better and I have seen it probably 100 times.
share