In fairness, I don't think those are good examples. Both Jaws and E.T. would be on almost any reasonable list of great movies (depending on the cut off and number) and there isn't much question about the acting, plot, pacing, or visual vocabulary employed in those movies. In fact, E.T. especially is so influential from a visual perspective that it continues to be referenced to this day.
I mean, it's not like Spielberg is some random, Alan Smithee-level replacement director. He's not exactly a Ron Howard-type you bring in. Or, um, Ivan Reitman.*
It's perfectly fine. Cromulent. If someone wanted to talk about 80s movies, it would definitely be one of them! But, and I mean this in the nicest possible way:
1. It is more of a "It's Morning in America" campaign commercial than Top Gun, which is saying something. You don't have to go all Roland Barthes on it to see the political messaging, which is as unsubtle as a pangalactic gargle blaster.
2. It's perfectly problematic for an 80s movie. Sure, it's not super rape-y, like Revenge of the Nerds, but it's definitely uncomfortable (I mean, we all recognize that it's probably wrong for professors to sleep with coeds under false pretenses, right, even when they are all cool and stuff). And the whole pursuit of Dana ... that's wasn't charming, that was creepy as eff. Again, times change, but if you watch this movie with a younger generation, you have some 'splainin to do as to why Venkman is "funny charming" and not "creepy rapey."
3. The plotting is terrible, the cinematography is so-so. The reason the movie works (and it does!) is because of the chemistry and comedic chops of the main cast, and that's no small thing. Well, that and the omnipresent branding for a few years in the 80s.
The reason I discuss this in a thread about a reboot/remake is it's important to try to understand what is good about a movie if you want to remake it. If we all agree that the original cast isn't coming back (they aren't), then what is left? The name? The brand? Some comedy?
Because, to the studios, a remake is nothing more than trying to leverage nostalgia and an IP. And, in this case, maybe sell some toys and get the licensing going again. But when people say that the movie needs to be "true" to the original, I have to wonder what that really means.
(I would note that someone said it was the mixture of horror and comedy; while I disagree from a subjective standpoint, not finding it very scary, not even as scary as fellow 1984 movie Gremlins, I can at least get behind that as a good working theory and basis to make the next movie.)
EDIT- All that said, I completely agree with you that the debate about "classic" is just a disagreement over terms.
