Originally Posted by kelgy
You know, I find Spielberg's movies to get less interesting over time. I hardly pay attention to anything he makes these days. He reflects the attitude where fantasy or fx movies are meant to be dumb, while "serious" movies are slice of life.
He pretty much gave up on his summer movies after winning an oscar -not unless it had Kubrick or Phillip K Dick or HG Wells involved to add respectability.
I think less of a movie like Raiders these days (which I was a huge huge fan of back in the 80s) and more of something like Dragonslayer which I hardly paid attention to at the time--Interestingly, Mathew Robbins, the director and co-writer of Dragonslayer, also co-wrote Close Encounters and was the writer of that recently shelved Lovecraft movie for Guillermo Del Toro. The other writer of Dragonslayer went into video games.
I understand what you're saying. But I think Spielberg is just very good at finding a wavelength that represents a certain Greatest Common Denominator of Relatable Human Experience.
Whether it's "discovering Paternal instinct" like in Jurassic Park, or the parallels between having imaginary friends or friends from another world, or finding a sense of wonderment in something, while being lonely in ordinary life like in "E.T.".
It's not terribly deep.. But it's "basic" and "relatable" (apparently to a large number of people). And to be honest, I prefer them that way. I think people want to go to the movies to have a good time. And I think mostly, Spielberg's work is a happy medium. I cannot deny others emulating in his style have since produced drivel. But at the core of Spielberg's work is always a "relatable element". Although he can't please everyone. He can please a lot of them. And that's the reason.
The other thing remarkable is his framing, sense of color, shot arrangements for elements.