Movies whose reputation *wrongly* decayed over time

Cafe Society
1

As time marches on, movies’ popularity, critical esteem, etc., typically do not remain static (assuming they are remembered at all).

Often, movies are loved when they come out and rightly are forgotten or loved less as time passes. Maybe the effects don’t hold up, maybe changing times render the movie obsolete.

But sometimes, it is possible to feel, movies’ reputations wrongly decay. Or later on people simply forget how good they were. Here are two examples. Feel free to debate and provide your own!

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

I was 12 when this came out, and it was a BFD, needless to say. Everyone I knew was happy with it–there was zero sense of disappointment as with the prequels.

Over time, it’s gotten a bit of a rep as the worst of the original trilogy and… Ewoks! Ewoks suck, so this movie kinda sucks, right?

First, I’m not a fan of the Ewoks either, though I’m not a hater. They were a pretty well-done practical effect and fit in with the 80s cute monster aesthetic of Gremlins, etc. And they are not a massively huge part of the movie.

The rest of the movie, in terms of action and visuals, is kick-ass. I think people forget all the good stuff that’s in it and how well it’s done. The pace is excellent. The final battle between Luke and Vader is superb, and Luke’s confrontation with the Emperor is compelling. It’s a pretty satisfying end to the original trilogy.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Everyone seemed to love this when it came out. I saw it in the theater–there was again no sense of disappointment I perceived. People seemed eager for Raimi’s Part 4 as well. But then the popularity of this movie seemed to fall off a cliff.

People now make fun of the “emo Peter” scene and say that having three villains makes this too confused. I don’t agree on either count. I thought the dark Peter stuff was funny. I liked his flirtations with Gwen Stacy (and Dallas Bryce Howard looks scrumptious in the part). And there were only two new villains, and the movie seemed satisfyingly stuffed but not overstuffed when I saw it.

There’s dumb shit in it too: the symbiote falls from heaven and just happens to land near Peter? How convenient. But I think the well-worshipped Spider-Man 2 is no better in this regard: nuclear fusion experiments in the middle of Manhattan?

In fact, 3 seemed like a good successor to 2, with the same type of shlocky fun, so I’ve just never understood the unique hate for 3.

Those are my picks for pics. What are yours?

2

You may be remembering through a haze of nostalgia. Even at the time, the third Star Wars movie was a bit disappointing. The Ewoks were overly cute and seemed like a blatant merchandising ploy. But from a story telling perspective, the Vader turning his back on the dark side and getting a smiling ghostly redemption seemed bogus. Vader was a monster who tortured and killed people and participated in the blowing up of planets. But he and his kid hug so all is forgiven? Even at the time, this seemed lame and contrived. Not to mention the Luke and Leia being brother and sister. And the retread plot – oh, look, it’s another Death Star.

3

Spider-man 3 was definitely hated when it came out. If anything, I’d say it’s reputation has improved in recent years. After the last two “serious” movies, I think people have been craving the sillier more “comic book” Spider-man movies.

4

Except this one wasn’t even complete…

5

I, too, think people are a little overly harsh on Return of the Jedi. I just can’t get behind the Ewoks as a big problem, while the Jawas and cute beeping droids get a pass. Jedi might be a little silly, but it’s not like the other movies are 2001: A Space Odyssey or anything. Don’t get me wrong, I respect all three films immensely, but I feel the tone is consistent, and that tone is light.

One thing I’ve never gotten is the complaint that a film is “dated.” Like, “I can’t stand Easy Rider, it’s so dated to the sixties!” Well, yeah. It’s a movie from the sixties, about the sixties. Were you expecting it to be dated to the eighties? If a person just hates the style of the sixties, fine, but that’s their baggage, IMO, and not a reason to disparage a film. Some of the best movies I’ve ever seen become better as they age, turning into a kind of time capsule for their decade. Clueless, for example, is one of the most dated, and most enjoyable films of the nineties.

6

I don’t think Clueless is dated. Sure, the dialogue and fashion are, but the underlying story is pretty much universally understandable/relatable (insofar as stories about rich kids can be relatable).

7

Yup, I have a feeling it would have made pretty good sense in 1815…

8

Maybe The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean. I think their initial reputations may have declined due to the sequels being so poorly done. But the originals were still good movies.

9

Clueless was an unusual case. When the movie was initially released the dialogue and fashions weren’t current. But the movie was so popular that teens began imitating the characters and a few months after the movie’s release it was right on point.

10

That’s not how I remember it, at all. Especially coming after the really good Doc Ock one, it was immediately, viscerally disappointing.

11

It’s a trap!

12

I watched *Total Recall *the other day, the old one with Schwarzenegger. I remember it mainly for being goofy fun, for the triple breasted hooker, and for one of Debbie Lee Carrington’s only roles where she didn’t have to wear a mask or something.

I was kind of surprised at how it looked dated. In the future, apparently everything will be fairly shiny and new, even things that are supposed to look old and grimy, and life will happen mainly on location or on very small, obvious sets.

It did not prevent the movie from being goofy fun, though. The movie hasn’t changed. I have. And I tend to feel the same way about Return Of The Jedi; was a big hoot to see in the theatre, and I enjoy it, although I prefer the version without the musical number at Jabba’s palace… that’s a whole nother thread. Ewoks don’t bother me.

Spider-Man 3, on the other hand, wasn’t a great experience. Too much plot getting in the way of the story, and it was obvious that the studio and the creative team had some differences. I remember seeing all these characters and villains and thinking when I was in the theatre, “Yeah, someone wanted more different action figures to sell,” and the creative team just had to do what they could. Everyone seems to agree that the first Batman was a good movie, and we only needed one hero and one villain. What’s the problem?

13

Miss Woodhouse approves. :smiley:

14

I see what you did there.

15

It’s possible, then, that I just have a hard time grasping what people mean when they say a movie is dated. I’ve always assumed that it meant that movie was so of it’s time in terms of fashion, slang, and style that if you saw just a little clip of it, you’d know what era it was from.

I suppose a movie might be morally dated, like Gone with the Wind or Birth of a Nation, but I don’t think most people are talking about that, unless they specifically state it.

16

whooshed again batman

17

I guess I would use the term differently when talking about a rom-com versus, say, a sci-fi movie or action thriller. But my primary understanding would be that the film as a whole is dated. Like, a Ray Harryhausen movie looks ridiculous now, but the effects in ROTJ and Jurassic Park still look good. I mean, the fashions and slang in any nineties movie now look silly, so that can’t be what we’re talking about, can it?

18

Actually, the dialogue and fashion were utterly Beverly Hills/Newport Beach current. A RNATB noted, the film was about rich girls.

19

Re: things being ‘dated’

I think there are two ways this can happen. I call them, in an arbirtary and completely random way, Dated:TOS and Dated:TNG.

Dated:TOS - A product of a time with significantly different mores/culture, but addressing fairly universal issues. The trappings may be dates, but the underlying conflicts and resolutions are timeless.

Dated:TNG - The underlying conflicts and resolutions themselves are products of a specific time/more/culture.

These are both different than a ‘period piece,’ which is designed specifically to embody a specific social/cultural aesthetic. (Gone with the Wind, for example, is a period piece about the civil war, but is dated because of its early-mid 20th century attitudes).

20

Independence Day. When the movie came out, it was huge - I remember long lines outside the theaters to see it, people giving standing ovations and cheering during the show, etc. The CGI was a giant leap forward, and it had that feel-good rah-rah patriotism thing going for it. I think its reputation has been harmed largely due to the fact that Roland Emmerich has spent the 20 years since then rehashing the exact same formula over and over again.

Avatar feels like it’s going in the same direction - people loved its visual effects when it came out, but as time goes by I hear less adoring praise and more criticism of its clichéd plot.