# Close Encounters of the Third Kind really isn't that good **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 11, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477 "2012-03-11T19:25:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shawn1767](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Shawn1767](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shawn1767)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/21 "2012-03-12T03:46:48Z")
“Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is one of my all-time favorite movies. Every six months or so, I pop it in the DVD player and watch it again. My ten-year old daughter watches it with me every time as well. I was 11 years old when it came out and when I first saw it in the theater. It changed my life. Literally. Before I had seen it, I used to be terrified to go to sleep at night. There had been a report a few years earlier of men being abducted by aliens in Pascagoula, Mississippi and that had a dramatic impact on me. I was very young at the time and I knew Mississippi was close to Louisiana where I lived. I was very interested in space however and liked movies about space. My parents knowing that I had this fear of being abducted, were hesitant to let me see CE3K and my aunt and uncle (who had seen it) were also a bit leery. However, they relented and I saw it. For the first time, I saw the possibility that aliens could be merely curious explorers and not hell-bent on destruction. Instead of fear, I began welcoming the idea that life might be out there searching for us. So CE3K is definitely on my list of all-time favorite movies. It has a child-like wonder to it. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/22 "2012-03-12T03:58:54Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > That shot of the little boy opening the door to the blast of light is…I hate to use a shopworn word, but it’s truly iconic. > > But that whole scene is incredible, because of how the little boy reacts… From [IMDb.com](http://IMDb.com): \*Barry is shown to be surprised by the extraterrestrials. Director Steven Spielberg had two crew members hide in boxes off camera, one in a clown suit and one in a gorilla suit. One popped out, then the other as the cameras rolled, catching young Cary Guffey’s bewildered reaction. Spielberg then whispered to the gorilla to remove his mask, eliciting a smile from Guffey… Cary Guffey’s performances were so good that they only ever had to do one or two takes of each shot he was in. He became known as One-Take Cary on the set, and Steven Spielberg had a t-shirt printed up for him with the phrase written on it. \* I saw CE3K again about a year ago and thought it held up pretty well. There’s a sense of wonder and anticipation that still gets me. The tie-in to Flight 19 was genius; that was in the news a lot at the time due to the (bogus, but hey, it was the woo-woo Seventies) Bermuda Triangle connection: [Flight 19 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_19) ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/23 "2012-03-12T05:01:47Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > I’m with the OP. I think the same about _Jaws_ and _Blade Runner_. They all rely heavily on nostalgia from those who saw it at the original release to be considered any good. In today’s terms they’re really not up to snuff. Is this something you feel about a lot of older movies or just some specific ones. I ask because movie styles have changed over the years. I love the movie _Spartacus_ even though it was made sixteen years before I was born. I think it’s a great movie but if someone had shot that movie in 2010 they would likely think it’s a terrible movie with poor special effects and overly melodramatic acting. I really like _Blade Runner_ (I was six when it came out) but it’s pacing is slow compared to movies made today. I don’t think it’d do all that great if released today but I still think it’s a good movie. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/24 "2012-03-12T05:25:18Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Is this something you feel about a lot of older movies or just some specific ones. It is something I feel about a lot of older movies. But I think it’s no excuse to still list them as classics if they aren’t as good to watch anymore; if the flaws are more evident. That’s what I meant by nostalgia. They consider them good now, because they were then, while I don’t think that’s good enough. That’s my side, though I know there are plenty who’d argue the other quite successfully. I think Spielberg didn’t find his footing in regards to pacing until _Raiders_, and things started to work a lot more consistently after that (with a few missteps - _Empire of the Sun_ has terrible pacing), while I’ve _always_ thought Ridley Scott is all flash and no substance. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/25 "2012-03-12T05:37:18Z")
> [@Mr.Greenjeans](#): > > To me, the pacing serves to build the tension of Jaws (unlike less “dated” movies where a character just says “Gee, it’s really tense.”). If you saw the actual shark from the beginning of the movie, it would have been laughable after the first hour. Agreed. And there’s many ways to improve the pacing than by showing the shark at the start. ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/26 "2012-03-12T07:45:01Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > I agree, to an extent. I think Jaws is still pretty good, but it’s noticeably dated in terms of pacing. And Blade Runner just bores the crap out of me. > > But this could just be me; I won’t extrapolate to a wider audience. Blade Runner is not an action movie, it transports you to another time and place and presents a morally murky situation you have to apply your own judgement to. If you’re not interested in the reality it creates or the moral ambiguity then yes it is pretty boring, I wouldn’t say nostalgia is needed to enjoy it. I’ve heard the same complaint about the first half of A New Hope, that it is boring and who cares about this desert planet or a bar full of aliens. And again it is a film that transports you to another place and time, if you’re not interested in that you won’t enjoy it. ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/27 "2012-03-12T11:31:30Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > I’m with the OP. I think the same about _Jaws_ and _Blade Runner_. They all rely heavily on nostalgia from those who saw it at the original release to be considered any good. In today’s terms they’re really not up to snuff. LoL…what current film is up to snuff? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/28 "2012-03-12T11:56:57Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > It is something I feel about a lot of older movies. But I think it’s no excuse to still list them as classics if they aren’t as good to watch anymore; if the flaws are more evident. I thought this might be the case and there are certainly plenty of people who agree. I know a lot of people who won’t watch an old movie because they don’t like the acting style, the special effects or the fact that it’s black and white. > [@](#): > > That’s what I meant by nostalgia. They consider them good now, because they were then, while I don’t think that’s good enough. I don’t think it’s nostalgia. I happen to think The Changeling (1980) starring George C. Scott is an excellent movie for reasons other than nostalgia. It’s well acted and has a pretty engaging plot. However, most audiences today would find the pacing of the movie to be way too slow. I also don’t believe that people who know movies (I don’t include myself on this list) think old movies are classics out of a sense of nostalgia. When does a “good” movie turn “bad?” ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/29 "2012-03-12T12:12:20Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > From [IMDb.com](http://IMDb.com): > > The tie-in to Flight 19 was genius; that was in the news a lot at the time due to the (bogus, but hey, it was the woo-woo Seventies) Bermuda Triangle connection: [Flight 19 - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_19) Genius? I thought it was trite. All those Bermuda Triangle books (and they started _long_ before Charles Berlitz ever set pen to paper) had been hinting at aliens being responsible for the disappearance. Spielberg using this was just another of those “National Enquirer” momenyts. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/30 "2012-03-12T14:41:00Z")
Another vote for the original being much better than the “special edition”. If you haven’t seen it, try to watch the original first. Cleaner, less stupid stuff, a tighter ending. (Then watch “Hardware Wars”.) And it has Melinda Dillon in her prime. Plus Truffaut, Balaban, … ---
**Author:** ![Quimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/22d042/32.png) [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/31 "2012-03-12T16:10:10Z")
When I was a kid, I treated Close Encounters like a Godzilla movie. With Godzilla movies, I hated what I would call the “people parts”. I would zone out when the people were running around and talking and just pay attention (and love) when the monsters appeared. Replace monsters with Aliens and that was how I sat through CE3K. As an adult, I appreciated the movie more and what strikes me as interesting is how Richard Dreyfus just basically tosses his family aside to follow his obsession. I don’t think a modern movie would do that with a character you are supposed to like. ---
**Author:** ![Kylede](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a6a055/32.png) [@Kylede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kylede)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/32 "2012-03-12T16:22:53Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > It is something I feel about a lot of older movies. But I think it’s no excuse to still list them as classics if they aren’t as good to watch anymore; if the flaws are more evident. That’s what I meant by nostalgia. They consider them good now, because they were then, while I don’t think that’s good enough. That’s my side, though I know there are plenty who’d argue the other quite successfully. SO, i think what your saying is akin to the following… Birth of a nation, was a great movie, but it would be better with sound. Casablanca was a great movie, but it would be better in color. Obviously movies with sound and color are better then without, thats why sound and color in filmaking were invented, to make the movie more like life, welive ina a world with color and sound! You are not gonna find a movie with current styles of pacing form the 1970…that why we call such thing “current”. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/33 "2012-03-12T16:28:10Z")
I thought Close Encounters was not bad; it was more about atmosphere than actual plot. Jaws is just plain awesome. I didn’t see either of them until the '90s. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/34 "2012-03-12T17:25:02Z")
I have always – going back to my original viewing in the 70s – thought the middle sequence, with Richard Dreyfus’s sculpting of Devil’s Towers in mashed potatoes and dirt – interminable and boring. But I still watch the beginning (until Dreyfus’s CE) and the end (from around the point where Dreyfus escapes and makes it to the landing site) just about every time I see it’s on. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/35 "2012-03-12T19:54:27Z")
> [@Kylede](#): > > SO, i think what your saying is akin to the following… > Birth of a nation, was a great movie, but it would be better with sound. > Casablanca was a great movie, but it would be better in color. Er. No, that’s not at all what I’m saying. That would only be true if the lack of colour or sound makes them flawed as a film if we view it today, and that’s not necessarily so. There are many movies of yesteryear that I think still hold up today, I just don’t think _Jaws_ or _Close Encounters_ do, amongst others. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/36 "2012-03-12T19:58:52Z")
> [@Quimby](#): > > …As an adult, I appreciated the movie more and what strikes me as interesting is how Richard Dreyfus just basically tosses his family aside to follow his obsession. I don’t think a modern movie would do that with a character you are supposed to like. Spielberg made the movie before he was married or had kids, and has since said he regrets that Roy drove his wife and kids away. But c’mon, it underlined just how obsessed the character was becoming. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/37 "2012-03-12T20:06:50Z")
> [@grude](#): > > Blade Runner is not an action movie. Thanks, I’m well aware. 2001: A Space Odyssey if even less of an action movie, and yet it engaged me infinitely more. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/38 "2012-03-12T20:08:50Z")
> [@Quimby](#): > > As an adult, I appreciated the movie more and what strikes me as interesting is how Richard Dreyfus just basically tosses his family aside to follow his obsession. I don’t think a modern movie would do that with a character you are supposed to like. Not just a modern movie, but even the same movie directed by Spielberg in the modern era. He’s gone on record as saying he wouldn’t end the film the same way he did, since he couldn’t see a father ever doing now, now that Spielberg’s a father himself. ---
**Author:** ![tullsterx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tullsterx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tullsterx)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2012, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/39 "2012-03-12T20:13:58Z")
> [@sparky\_1](#): > > I was born in '75, and so recall seeing this film on tv (though only in parts). > > I’m now watching it and really still do not understand the draw this film has. I can recall it seeming a bit disjointed, and watching it now, I feel the same way. I mean, it seems like ages and yet the plot hasn’t really progressed much. > > So what was so special about the film when it came out. Does anyone else agree that it doesn’t hold up well at all? Maybe. It seems kinda M. Night Shamalany now, thinking back in it. I think the film really benefited from the alien abduction craze of the time. Aliens really weren’t such a big deal in the pop culture until the mid 70’s or so. That topic seems so old and stale now to everyone (except George Lucas, who still things its a cool idea) that CE doesn’t have the same appeal. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477/40 "2012-03-13T02:38:40Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > I agree about the film not being all that great. I saw it when it first came out, and was extremely disappointed. This film _ended_ where _Day the Earth Stood Still_ BEGAN – with the flying saucer landing and the inhabitants coming out. Yo can argue all you want that it’s a different type of film all you want, but _that’s where the interesting part happens_. This is a “National Enquirer” view of the universe, and I prefer mine “Scientific American”. This is like complaining that _Casablanca_ ends where the real action starts because the real meat is how Rick & Louie escape to America. It completely misses the point. _Close Encounters_ has the trappings of a science fiction film, but it is largely a film about Faith–and one of the greatest films on that subject, for my money, ever made. I think it’s also highly undervalued as one of the great conspiracy movies of the 70s, up there with _The Parallax View_ and _Three Days of the Condor_ (except not nearly so pessimistic). Perhaps Spielberg is right in that it’s a young man’s film, for which we should all be grateful he made it before he had a family, because Roy’s obssession, as disturbing as it is moving, means nothing if he doesn’t sacrifice everything for it. For my money, it’s still the best film Spielberg has ever made. And except for the silly interior of the mother ship, I don’t mind the Special Edition changes (the boat in the desert, the shadow over Roy’s truck, etc.). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/close-encounters-of-the-third-kind-really-isnt-that-good/615477.md?page=3)