I saw E.T. last night for the first time since childhood, and it clarified some things for me about an aspect of the Hugo Nonsense (TM) that has befuddled me--specifically, the difference between an influential work and a good work.

Right about the time the credits began to roll, I turned to my husband and was all, "Uh. This is considered a *good* movie? Did I miss something?"

Because while you can certainly say a lot of nice things about aspects of the movie, as a whole piece it just really doesn't work.

Specifically, the plot is so slavishly stuck to the beats of the Hero's Journey that half the time, stuff only seems to happen because the beat sheet calls for it, whether or not it's been set up well in the plot

As a piece of SF specifically, it's abysmal. You could substitute angels in place of the aliens and you'd have the exact same movie. In fact, it would probably improve the movie.

In fact, the only way I could make sense of the movie's reputation was to view it as a kids' movie with unusually good direction and visuals. Like if Martin Scorsese directed one of the Air Bud movies, okay yeah, sure, I guess?

As my husband and I went circles trying to justify why this movie was good, we started listing similar movies, all those "band of white boys do a whimsical thing" slice of life thingies. The Goonies. The Sandlot. Stand By Me.

ALL of which, IMHO, are better than ET.

Then I went to the Wikipedia article on ET, wondering what critical response was. Apparently it was universally loved?! Holy shit, it was nominated for 9 Oscars and got a friggin UN Peace Medal? WHAAAAAA.

There's a hilarious quote in Wikipedia from the one critic who didn't like his. His complaint? That the movie "spread subversive notions about childhood and science."

Uhhh.... did we watch the same movie?!

And to this day, it still lands on all those lists of Best Movies Ever Made, which confused me even more. Because it's one thing to say it was important for its time, and another to say it's The Best Ever

I can totally understand the Seinfeld Effect and the influence of nostalgia, of course. How a work that does a thing *first* and breaks new ground will be remembered for it, and how your own first encounter with a trope or genre will always be personally special.

What confused me, though, was how poorly ET holds up in the shadow of the things it later inspired.

Imagine a film festival of ET and its descendants where movies are presented in random order, without context. Imagine you were seeing all these movies for the first time, without nostalgic attachment. Which ones capture you? Which ones are disappointing?

I think this is the true litmus test of "good" vs "innovative". ET was an innovative movie, but its successors were not imitators. They actually improved upon the seeds in ET that resonated, and as a result, ET doesn't hold up to what came after.

This isn't true of all works. Some older things would hold up just fine in a similar imaginary festival, despite their flaws. If you gave me a stack of epic fantasy to read with no context, I think I'd enjoy Lord of the Rings just fine, among its descendants.

I might not find it mind-blowing, as I did in middle school when it became my own personal First Epic Fantasy. But it wouldn't bore me to tears an deeply confuse me like ET did. I'd label LOTR perfectly good AND influential.

BUT.

The real problem here is when you reach the point of epistemic cloture. This is what I suspect is happening on those Best Movies of All Time lists. Cishet white dudes of previous generations who saw ET and then stopped paying attention to what came after.

The idea that because it came first, it did it best. That successors can't be innovators as well. The insistence that everyone agree with you that ET is both influential AND good.

That's where the current Hugo Nonsense goes off rails, of course. They don't want us to acknowledge that Lovecraft, Campbell, etc, are influential. They claim that, but I think they really want us to agree with them that they are *good*.

And that's where the frustration sets in. All the digging in over award names and statues and long rambles about the past. They want their Best Movies of All Time list to mean something to the rest of us who've seen what came after ET. It's a grasping after immortality.

I guess it wouldn't be such a problem if these guys didn't feel out and out *threatened* over the lack of genuflecting from the rest of us. I wish they could step back for a minute and recognize nothing is diminished in a thing important to them if later people did it better.

I think it would be an unutterable honor to make a work that was so influential, even if that meant it later wouldn't hold up to what was built on that foundation. That would be a mark of pride. I'd love to aspire to that kind of influence.

I hope if that ever happens, I'd have the grace and good humor to laugh at myself and say, "Yeah, it doesn't hold up that well, but it was sure neat how it resonated with people at the time."