The Empire Stumbles

We saw a cultural and generational coup d'etat this month, at least in cinematic terms -- if we were watching. Star Wars was challenged by millions of rebellious kids, who decided to choose a new kind of myth. The next generation unseated its elders -- as is the right of every generation - and is making its own culture, moving away from ours. In doing so, these kids balked at mega-hype, rediscovered earnestness, simplicity, the love story, some patriotism, punctured a billion-dollar balloon, and maybe even sparked a (relative) movement away from whorish sellouts, back to simpler story-telling. I, for one, sure hope so.

The evidence: In its first four days, Star Wars: Episode 2 -- Attack of the Clones sold nearly $117 million worth of tickets. When Spider-man opened two weeks earlier, it earned $115 million in just three days. Not only that, but the nerd-arachnoid drama earned another $48 million in box office during the weekend George Lucas' elephantine epic opened. And it shows no signs of slowing down. Spider-man is now on track to massacre Star Wars , perhaps out-earning it in the early days of the summer by as much as $100 million, if projected patterns continue. What happened? You can hardly call Clones a failure, but seeing it seems as much a reflex as a choice. And the grosses are below expectations, where as Spider-man is re-defining what a mega-hit movie is. I think Lucas and his movies have outgrown their audience, losing relevance to the young, the real avatars of culture, and are suffocating under their own enormous inertia and weight.

The late mythologist Joseph Campbell (who helped Lucas craft the Skywalker/Vader saga) wrote in The Elements of Myth that the hero-journey -- the often rebellious trek far from loved ones and home, finds a great teacher, battles evil forces in the world -- is inherent in every great myth, from cave-dweller's tales to Tolkien to Star Wars. It's certainly central to the story of Peter Parker, an unhappy and awkward kid who overnight goes from suffering at a nasty Queens high school to soaring over Manhattan's skyscrapers in search of the Green Goblin (this movie's Dark Side rep). In fact, every great myth has a lonely hero, a masked villain or two, and thinly-disguised spiritual choices between forces of good (God/a.k.a. The Force) or Evil (the literal Dark Side of the universe which shows up, Campbell wrote, in paintings that are thousands of years old.)

Why is Spider-Man's version surprisingly drubbing Lucas's, when he's cornered the global franchise on cinematic myth-marketing and he's one of the master cinematic marketers and hype-meisters of all time?

Several possible reasons. The Spider-Man saga is a simple love/adventure story, much like the first Star Wars, which didn't take itself nearly as seriously as the pompous sequels, pre-quels and tie-ins hatched at Lucas's secret ranch. In Spider-man, a nerd feels powerless, gets bitten by the bug, becomes powerful, goes on to confront great evil (and doesn't get the girl). Luke Skywalker, too, was powerless and trapped when we first met him. Then he met Obi-Wan, got in touch with the Force, went soaring around the universe to battle evil -- and didn't get the girl, either. Since the audience and industry expectations of Spider-Man were lower, the movie could afford to be looser, jokier -- more human. But poor George Lucas had dug himself a monstrous hole.

Simply because it's new (on film, at least) , Spider-Man arrives shrouded in less hype than Star Wars. When George Lucas decided to resuscitate his epic after a nearly generation-long respite, he could have chosen at least somewhat of a classier route and put some limits on the marketing that now engulfs big movies. Instead he acted like Jabba the Hutt, gorging on every dollar he could get. The producers of Lord Of The Rings curbed the marketing and toy tie-ins with corporations peddling food and dolls to kids out of respect for Tolkien. That makes Lucas, who showed no such restraint, all the more hypocritical and pretentious - polluting the series with trolls, Ewoks, aliens, soldiers, Jar-Jar Binks and his goofy patois, and all their inevitable action figures, light sabres, T-shirts and soda-cup representations.

Lucas created a brilliant film saga, then undercut it by demonstrating that there were few limits -- maybe no limits -- on what he would do to make still more money. The message to kids especially was follow the Force, but rake in the cash.

A franchise like Star Wars ought to be allowed to -- and can afford to -- retain some of its dignity and still make tens of millions. The movies make a fortune in their own right, a common experience that transcends reviews and tie-ins. When is enough enough? Lucas crossed the line, and cheapened his movies.

He also neglected to bone up on Campbell's books on the power and elements of myth. Spider-man is a simple love story about teen-aged angst: a kid almost anybody can relate to is suddenly transformed by a great power, grapples touchingly and hilariously to come to terms with that, and confronts a single bad guy and vanquishes him, though not without cost. Sound familiar? It ought to. That was more or less the feeling, despite the Imperial Death Star, of the original Star Wars. Spider-man was a cartoon myth -- part of the once-brilliant Marvel Comics factory, balm to nerds of the time -- and the movie doesn't forget its roots in the dialogue, plotting or action.

But what is Attack of the Clones about? The Skywalker genealogy? The Empire's evil origins? The birth of the Empire's Troopers? The rise and fall of the Queen of Naboo and her tormented lover and complex offspring? Trade unions and their relationship to the Galaxy? Legislative bodies and their place in galactic history? Lucas approaches the life and times of Darth Vader in much the same way biographer Robert Caro explores the life and times of ex-president LBJ (his latest book that's 1,300 pages long -- and that's just one volume of a projected four). Do we really care precisely how Anakin Skywalker got pissed off and turned to the Dark Side? Or would we -- especially the youngest among us -- be happy to see Yoda flashing his light-saber around and doing his Jackie Chan imitation?

Spider-Man is interesting on other levels, too. It's a very New York movie, set in working-class Queens and amidst the spires of Manhattan. It is unabashedly domestic and patriotic, even as Star Wars is pointedly other-worldly in tone and feel. Consider the Spider-man scene where New Yorkers cheer our hero from the Queensborough Bridge. It's heavy-handed but interesting. The movie ends with Spider-man draped around an American flag on a skyscraper not far from where the World Trade Center Towers used to stand. Holed up in his California cocoon, Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America. He had too much genealogy to worry about. But the producers of Spider-Man, with a few last-minute adjustments, read it right. Star Wars was conceived in an era when Harrison Ford's Han Solo perfectly typified a generation's disenchantment with government and politics. Peter Parker has a different view, and so do the millions of kids making his movie a smash.

Attack Of The Clones is a cautionary tale, all right, but perhaps not the one Lucas intended. The real lesson is, if you're trying to make great movies aimed primarily at the young, avoid pomposity, self-indulgence and too much self-reference. Keep the story simple, clear and touching. Remember that movies mirror life. Films like this are about love, loss, conflict and fantasy. Spider-Man keeps that very much in mind. Attack Of The Clones seems to have forgotten it. That's why kids are flocking repeatedly to a new variety of myth, unseating the reigning one.

Comments

Of course, Jon...

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be because the Spider-Man marketing and hype campaign began before Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was released.

Note to Jon Katz:

[wedg]

If you want to read what really good journalism sounds like, pick up Great Shark Hunt, but Hunter S. Thompson, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream, by same, or Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72.

Stop writing all this crap that a) says nothing, b) is as in-tune with your readers as a waffle and c) is just plain poorly written.

Thanks,
Loyal Slashdot Reader

A better explanation

[dfalgoust]

I think a better explanation is that Spider-Man is better written and better directed than Attack of the Clones. Occam's Razor and all that.

Oh, and dare I dream...first post?

Re:A better explanation

[argel]

I think a better explanation is that Spider-Man is better written and better directed than Attack of the Clones. Occam's Razor and all that.

When you have good actors but the acting is lackluster, that's defintely the director's fault. Weak script with even weaker directing. I actually thought Episode I was better, even with Jar Jar Binks. Darh Maul was certainly better than any villan in AoTC.

Re:A better explanation

[srmalloy]

I think a better explanation is that Spider-Man is better written and better directed than Attack of the Clones. Occam's Razor and all that.

And the fact that Attack of the Clones opened in 1000 fewer theatres than Spider-Man did has nothing to do with its lower box office numbers. Nope.

Re:A better explanation

[Makaer]

This is clearly the case. Attack of the Clones failed on multiple fronts, and all of them could have easily been corrected via direction or writing.

First of all, the love story in AotC's was horrible. Padme may as well show up on Jerry Springers "Power Crazed Sociopaths and why we love them". No one watching the movie could understand why Padme didn't run screaming the second stalker-jedi-boy starts drooling on her.

Spider-man's love story on the other hand made more sense. MJ may have been sketched out by Peter Parker's obsession for her, but she wasn't because he showed genuine caring towards her, something she was lacking (her father yelling at her, her boyfriends being shallow, etc.). This was believable.

Second big complaint. Who was the villian of Attack of the Clones? Dooku? You gotta be kidding. This guy didn't lie to anyone. He didn't appear to do anything really bad except maybe sit by and watch the 'execution'. He explained to Obi Wan his reasons, asked him to join up, Obi Wan said 'no, I'm not with you I'm against you', so what's he gonna do? The only implication that this guy is suppose to be evil is Yoda saying he's using the dark side of the force. But Anakin is suppose to be the one to bring balance, which implies that you need just as much dark side as light side. Again, it never clearly shows Dooku as being 'the bad guy'.

In Spider-Man the Green Goblin blows people up to get his way.

I am all for a more indepth story than 'hero fights bad guy', but shoving that all in a 2 hour movie is difficult, and Lucas has shown he can't even do it in a series this time around. If I want depth I'll read the book, it's a much better medium for such a thing.

Oh and lastly, I have to say, the Anakin in Phantom Menance and the Anakin in AotC's is so amazingly different it's unbelievable. Cute, friendly, helpful to strangers turns into power-crazed sociopathic mass murdering stalker. Man, Obi-Wan really fucked up his training!

Re:A better explanation

[edrugtrader]

and i'm sure demand has nothing to do with AOTC opening in 1000 fewer theatres than Spider-Man....

Re:A better explanation

[p7]

Spider-Man was a decent film. Pretty much your average summer action film. I haven't seen AotC yet, but I doubt either one is a directorial masterpiece. Here are a few reasons (in my opinion of course) why Spiderman did better.

1) It got off the blocks first. It didn't have to share it's first two weekends with AotC. Obviously with Spider-Man being as popular as it was, someone people were watching it when they would have gone to AotC if it had been the only game in town.

2) George Lucas burned us with Phantom Menace. Many people were not happy with the PM, and decided to wait a bit before seeing AotC. He also released way too many trailers.

3) Running time. You can't show AotC as many times in a day as you can with Spider-Man. Tie this in with few theaters for AotC.

In the end, JonKatz, draws too much meaning out of what is pretty much simple economics. Both are probably decent movies. I highly doubt that people are staying from AotC, because of Pomposity, self-indulgence or self-references. Spider-Man sated a bit our appetites for a big action film.

Re:A better explanation

[argel]

I agree that in depth Darth Maul was pathetic, but he was obviously a dangerous opponent, as Qui-Gon found out. There was no one who stood out as a serious immediate threat in that same way in AoTC. The whole Dooku sequence at the end was just weak. Obi-wan can kill Darth Maul but not Dooku??? Obi-wan fell too easily (I'd say the same about Anakin if it wasn't for his stupidity).

The Yoda battle was just disapointing. In fact I thought there was one seen in which both Dooku and Yoda had their light sabers locked where I could swear all Dooku had to do was slide his down Yoda's to kill him. And how is it that Yoda has to struggle to hold that "pillar" up when later on in Ep5 he tells Luke that size matters not?

I do not think Dooku was being nice to Obi-wan, et. al. either. The ending seems to make it pretty clear that things went according to plan -- recall that Dooku says something like "I have good news, we are at war". Basically, he was playing the Jedi for fools -- recall the line about the Republic ruled by a Sith and that he (Dooku) was fighting against that. That fits into the cliche of "the best lie is one cloaked in truth". At the end we see him reporting the good news that they are at war to Darth Siddius -- who is presumably Palpatine.

So the truth is that the Republic is lead by a Sith; the lie is that Dooku is working against these dark forces since at the end we learn he is actually working for them (actually, very high up, maybe the #2 man).

The main thing I want to know is if part of the plan was that the Jedi would track the bounty hunter down, find the clones, and basically have things go the way they did in the movie. In other words, how much of AoTC was part of the plan and how much was "winging it." Based on the ending you have to believe that a lot of it was part of the plan (i.e. they had to be counting on the Jedi to learn about the clones).

It's a good story adapted into a weak screenplay made even worse by bad directing, especially in regards to acting (if you have good actors and the acting is bad then it is the director's fault).

Why?

[Triskaidekaphobia]

Why is Spider-Man's version surprisingly drubbing Lucas

Because it isn't part of a series (yet). It can be enjoyed as a single film.
Anyone can see Spiderman; to see AotC you probably need some interest in Star Wars otherwise it will make no sense

Re:Why?

[rainmanjag]

It can be enjoyed as a single film. Anyone can see Spiderman

I strongly disagree... I think to appreciate Spiderman you had to have read/been a fan of the comic book... I have never read it nor had any interest in comic books whatsoever... And I thought the movie was absolutely terrible... it was a joke... it lacked a certain genuine quality... Spiderman swinging all the time happening to be in the exact right moment to catch whomever was plummetting to their doom only to be wisked away in his arms... it was just another in the current trend of comic-books-turned-movies... X-Men, Spiderman, and next summer it will be the Incredible Hulk... just another sellout...

Spiderman was nothing special... not that AotC was either... but let's not start calling Spiderman something it's not...

And please don't moderate me as flamebait... an honest opinion contrary to the popular one is not flamebait...

-jag

An issue of generational turnover, how?

[Kalabajoui]

"The next generation unseated its elders -- as is the right of every generation - and is making its own culture, moving away from ours."

Uh, exactly which generation is Spiderman supposed to represent? As a GenXer it's older than me, and if I'm not mistaken, is a far older tale than Star Wars.

Shiny shit still stinks.

[Telastyn]

I wish that Kurtz (wasn't this the name of the guy that "helped" Lucas with ep 4,5?) would make his own versions of ep 1-3. They were supposed to be much much darker and much more interesting.

Though I hope that the "new generation" goes for the Tolkien movies rather than X-men/Spiderman/the Hulk

New culture replacing old?

[Malc]

"The next generation unseated its elders -- as is the right of every generation - and is making its own culture, moving away from ours."

What is this tripe? Spiderman is older than Star Wars!

A simpler explanation.

[fmaxwell]

There may be a simpler explanation than cultural shifts laboriously hypothesized by Jon Katz:

Spiderman is a good movie. Star Wars: Attack of the Clones is not. Would Spiderman, had it been contemporaneous, have trounced the original Star Wars or The Empire strikes Back? I seriously doubt it.

Lucas had a simple good vs. evil story to tell in the original Star Wars. It did not require laborious scenes reminiscent of CSPAN in Space to explain. It was not about the special effects. They were there to serve the movie, not vice-versa as one might believe in the recent additions to the Star Wars saga.

Tastes have not changed radically. The quality of Star Wars movies has.

Katz, dont you ever stop?

[MisterBlister]

Both of these are highly commercial movies with dubious acting and a ridiculous amount of special effects shots.

Both of these cost a bundle to make. Spider-man cost MORE to make than Attack of the Clones.

Spider-Man spent MORE on marketing than Attack of the Clones.

I see Spider-Man marketing all over the place, including stupid ads for Carls Jr. Is this really any less of a sellout than Lucas/SW?

When Spider-Man #3 comes out (and if the movies keep making anywhere near this much this much money, it will), Katz will be one of the elitests crying about what sellouts Raimi and Maguire are, bet on it.

There's nothing to see here. As usual Katz is reading a lot more into something than actually exists.

Much simpler than that

[PD]

We don't want to be annoyed. We hated Scrappy Doo, we hated Oliver on the Brady Bunch. And we hate Jar Jar. I was HOPING that I wouldn't hear the word "meesa" come out of his mouth, but I did. That's point one.

Point two is that Lucas doesn't seem to demand much from his actors. Everyone in the film was a decent actor, but they were just coasting in this one. Easy work, for a nice fat check. That flew just fine with the original Star Wars, but now it's just stupid looking and awkward feeling.

But, back to the annoying sidekick. They just don't work. They never worked. Everyone hates them. If you like them, you are by definition outside the mainstream. Someday, if I ever become an editor or movie producer, I'm going to insist that every single thing made has an annoying sidekick or two in it. In fact, I'm going to insist that they all say the word "meesa" at least a hundred times. My goal will be to make the world so SICK of annoying sidekicks that future generations will not be plagued by this twist of storytelling idiocy.

Re:Much simpler than that

[taernim]

An interesting case would be on C3PO and the Ewoks. Most people (at least from my experience) generally have no problem with them these days. Some people may think the Ewoks are too "cuddly" and needless, but aside from that, not many people seem to consider C3PO much of an annoyance. Originally, people were "outraged" and hated the comic relief characters.

That brings to mind the question: Will future generations find Jar Jar not just tolerable, but... funny?

Another inane article

[Scoria]

Jon,

You do realize that Star Wars: Episode II premiered in an amount of theaters significantly less than that of Spider-Man?

You do realize that Spider-Man's marketing campaign began prior to last August, nearly a full year before its theatrical release? If I recall correctly, one of its first teaser trailers was appended to all prints of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, a movie that was released on July 11, 2001. (That was my AC post you read earlier. :p)

And finally, you do realize that both Spider-Man and Star Wars: Episode II are already most likely classified as "blockbusters" by the MPAA?

The narrow margin by which Spider-Man has defeated Star Wars isn't worthy of an article.

But what is a saga

[zaphod]

I view Star Wars and Lord of the Ring series as Sagas. On going movies that carry a central story. I don't see that with Spider Man. There I see sequels coming out that very loosely tie previous movies together. For those who have seen Spider Man know the thin basis of the next movies. But Spider Man II will not carry an epic or a saga with it. It will just be a sequel. Personally, I liked Spider Man, but I like the saga of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings better. Just my $0.02 USD.

David

Re:But what is a saga

[Spencerian]

Your 2 cents is worth a dollar to me.

A saga does not attempt--and cannot--give a 12 hour story in a 2 hour format. Hell, most screenplays don't fit well into 2 hours from its novel origins.

Americans are spoiled by how Hollywood has made movies: They want immediate and final gratification. On that, Spider-Man wins. It's a good story in its own right. If you realize that life is a series of adventures, and not all of them spectacularly interesting, then the Star Wars saga's got most other movies beat hands down. Not that we should need Cliffs Notes for it, but there are many facets to The Flanneled One's little story, and it is enjoyable enough to those who are interested.

Very, very few people will talk about the Spider-Man movies in 25 years, I assure you. Not that Spider-Man the character isn't worth it--far from it. But Star Wars was meant to be talked about and chewed upon.

Consider these little morsels before you get your panties in a bunch about the fun that still is found in Star Wars (bad acting and dialogue notwithstanding):

* How can Palpatine, if he is actually (and presumed by many) to be Darth Sidious, sit nose to nose with Yoda and other Jedi and not be detected? SW history has it that the Dark Side of the Force throws off a bad metaphysical stink.

* A follow up to the first point: Are Palpatine and Sidious actually two different people? Clones, anyone? (Lots of dialogue on Kenobi's visit to the clone makers suggest that they can do anything to a clone, including changing its force sensitivity).

* Since we see that Padme's got a thing for scoundrels, does this later explain daughter Leia's taste in men?

* Why, for cryin' out loud, didn't Kenobi and Yoda teach Luke the various Sith lightning counterattacks they used in their fights? He could've used them...

The list goes on. I could make a small list for Spider-Man, but all it would revolve around would be how cold and wet we can make Kirsten Dunst's clothing in the next sequel.

All kidding aside, while Spider-Man the Movie has depth, it doesn't have a rich one. While Star Wars is just a popcorn movie, it's pretty good use-real-butter-dammit popcorn.

Katz' criticisms don't equate since he is comparing one movie to a series of movies.

Print This Out - Use It To Wipe Your Ass

[thelizman]

Once again Jon Katz goes the long way, arrives at the same point, but did so for all the wrong reasons. Star Wars "failure" to earn gobs of money doesn't represent any cultural paradigm shift, it represents simple market economics. It has competition from Spiderman, which came out first and took the first movie bucks available. Star Wars also defeated itself with the hype, convincing people that "oh well, I won't get to see it this weekend anyway", and those people went to see spiderman instead. Overall, Star Wars will trounce spiderman, but with just over one week in circulation it's not fair to already try to deem it a flop. It's also an utter stretch to imply that the underperformance of Star Wars is a reflection of some sort of grass roots revolution. It's a movie dumbass!

Huh?

[jayhawk88]

Holed up in his California cocoon, Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America.

Hello? He was producing a science-fiction movie. You know, A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away and all that? A movie that should have little or nothing to do with the real world. Nevermind the fact that the script for this movie was probably written many months, if not years, before 9-11.

What did you expect, some contrived pointless scene where all the Jedi stop and mention how the Coruscant police and firemen are the "real heroes"? Maybe they should have called Jango Fett a terrorist instead of a bounty hunter? Come on. Star Wars has nothing to do with our real world, it's escapism. Lucas doesn't have some sort of moral obligation to refer to or otherwise acknowledge real world events. It's a movie for God's sake.

Re:Huh?

[skirch]

This is probably too late to be modded up, and it's somewhat off topic, but this post touched on one of the things that really bugs me about the new batch of Star Wars movies.

Lucas has really screwed up by doing the exact opposite of what jayhawk suggests. There is way too much of our current culture in Star Wars, and it's one of the biggest problems with the movies. And it's not the interesting stuff, it's the annoying stuff, like the pod race announcer(s). The futuristic diner scene, the Blade-runner-esque advertising ridden cityscapes.

It doesn't make Star Wars seem like it's taking place in a galaxy far, far away. It's bright and flashy and more like Las Vegas Star Wars to me. Compared to the ambiance, style, and aesthetic of the sequels, the prequels are way off. Painfully so. After watching Phantom Menace, I'm always left wondering if Lucas has even watched the sequels. How could he screw it all up so badly?

Post 9/11 America?

[MisterBlister]

How can you bring up 9/11 in this discussion with a straight face, Katz?

Both of these movies were long done with principal photography by 9/11/01. Spider-Man is a better movie because it inserted a couple of pro-American "If you're not with us New Yorkers you're against us" scenes?

What should Lucas have done, added a scene where the Sith fly a speeder into the Jedi temple tower?

I'm not taking any sides here in the movie debate.. I liked both of thesem movies, and unlike Jon I don't think box office equates in any way to how good a movie is (yes Jon, this is the argument you are making..try reading your own writing and you'll see it). Is Titanic really that great of a movie? By Jon's logic it is..

Seriously, Katz, doesn't journalistic integrity mean anything to you anymore?

Credit to the kids and to Spider-Man PR

[phossie]

Spider-Man wasn't exactly devoid of hype, either. I mean, just how many sponsorships does this movie have? How many promotional tie-ins? I've seen far more hype for Spider-Man than I've seen for the painfully titled AotC. Granted, I live in a hole, but still...

It's ridiculous to imply that one massively budgeted Hollywood movie is some kind of underdog to another massively budgeted Hollywood movie.

Inventing an Issue

[ChaoticCoyote]

Jon, might I suggest that you write about real issues instead of inventing them?

The reality is: Star Wars Episode II and Spiderman are both doing well. Why create a conflicts and a social even when there isn't one? Most people I know saw both; they're great escapist eye candy. I can spout statistics that show how Star Wars beat Spidey at the box office (per screen revenues, for example)... but it's not worth the trouble.

I just took my two oldest dughters, ages 13 and 11 to see Star Wars. There is something magical about taking my kids to see a movie mythos that I've loved since the first film amazed me at age 15. The same thing happened with The Lord of the Rings last December -- I shared with my kids something special from my own life.

I'll be impressed when Spiderman 5 comes out in twenty-fix years and still pulls down blockbuster numbers.

My god where do you dream this crap up?

[Mordaximus]

"...you're trying to make great movies aimed primarily at the young."

WHAT? I guess the comic books were for the young as well?

Spider-Man is doing so well because it ISN'T targeted at primarily young.
It's for the Gen-Xers.
It's for our parents.
It's for anyone who loves super heroes.
It's for geeks.
It's for people who have read and loved the comic books.
And for people who watched the cartoons (I hoped that they would reuse the same 3 scenes for when he was swinging around. At least once, just for us!)

Why do you think we got the X-men? Blade? Why do you think the Hulk is on it's way? Scoobie? Not for the kiddies moron, it's for us. They know we'll bite. That we'll all go see our heroes in action. They want to drag the BIG kids in.

The average age opening night when I was there, best as I can figure (while waiting in line), was 30+. Not 12. Not 18. It was our generation wearing the spidey shirts for crying out loud!

9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

"Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America"

WTF? Wasn't this movie written and filmed months before 9/11? Jesus christ man, I didn't like the movie either, but I'm weary of anyone that heavy handedly uses the term "post-9/11" in an article to debate something that has nothing to do with 9-11.

AoC better than Spiderman

[bwt]

I saw both within a few days. I don't understand why Spiderman is so popular. It was OK, not great. It had the great benefit of low (no?) expectations.

I cringed twice during AoC at the mushy stuff, and twice during Spiderman. The bad guys had about the same level of character development (which was not much). The action was better in AoC (Did anybody really find the "Green Goblin" to be a good bad guy). The acting was a little better in Spiderman (but neither deserve Academy nominations). The overall plot complexity of AoC was much more rich.

I believe that all the people that knock AoC are basically just bitter about the fact that they have had to grow up. The original Star Wars movies were "magical", right? How can any movie live up to the *demand* that it restore people's feelings of childhood wonderment.

That's hilarious, Katz.

[Stickerboy]

The next generation unseated its elders -- as is the right of every generation - and is making its own culture, moving away from ours. In doing so, these kids balked at mega-hype, rediscovered earnestness, simplicity, the love story, some patriotism, punctured a billion-dollar balloon, and maybe even sparked a (relative) movement away from whorish sellouts, back to simpler story-telling. I, for one, sure hope so.

Heheh... only Katz could consider a movie (Spider-Man) produced by Sony Pictures, Inc. and spender of over $50 million in marketing to the unwashed masses a "balk[ing] at mega-hype", "simplicity", and "punctur[ing] a billion dollar balloon".

Let's see, reasons why Spider-Man made more money its opening weekend than Episode II:

4. It has a shorter running time, and therefore can be shown more times per day by theaters,
3. It showed on over 7,500 screens, as opposed to Episode II's 6,000,
2. It is (subjectively) a better movie, and audiences (maybe) prefer it, and

1. Spider-Man opened to no competition from other summer blockbusters, whereas Episode II opened against Spider-Man.

That Katz. When you need a highly publicized, mega-hyped troll, you know who to call.

Re:Fear and Loathing?!?

[MaxVlast]

Hardly. It's a fascinating eulogy for a period that was in its closing days and an invective against the complacency of spirit that he saw replacing it.

I'll second the earlier poster's sentiments. "The Great Shark Hunt" is a fantastic collection of some of the best journalism that I've ever read. "The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved" is possibly the most apt capturing of the character of a situation that I've ever seen. It's highly recommended to all.

Star Wars creamed the spin-offs from day one.

[Spudley]

This article makes it sound like the recent Star Wars episodes have sold-out. This isn't true: Lucas and Star Wars defined spin-off marketing from day one. Prior to Star Wars, spin-off marketing of movies was practically unheard of, and certainly never made more money than the film itself even when it did appear. But when Star Wars burst onto the scene, it brought an army of plastic minatures into the world that became a marketing phenomenon.
Today, original Star Wars figures are often worth a small fortune to collectors. In their day they made a big fortune for George Lucas. So don't tell me he's selling out now. It may be even bigger and brasher this time round, but he was the one who invented the idea in the first place.

How is this news?

[eison]

So more people like a fun comic book hero than a space western. Why is that some big revelation about "post-9/11 America", rather than just some big revelation about market share?

I think the best thing the success of Spider-Man indicates is that we'll see Spider-Man 2, 3, 4, 5, ... followed by Green Lantern and Silver Surfer on the big screen. Not that Lucas should give up and go home.

Re:It's very simple, really.

[Spudley]

[quote]There was no Spider-Man: Episode I.[/quote]

No... but there probably will be. :-/

Re:This isn't a big deal

[ergo98]

Personally I think the entire Star Wars franchise is embarrasingly bad (somehow I missed out on the hype machine for the original trio, so to me rather than fond memories of my childhood, they're just B grade sci-fi movies), and Lucas forsook his option to make the new series geared towards adults because of the ever important lucrative merchandising potential of continuing it more as a childrens movie (Come on: He seriously was going to put n'sync in it). Having said that, I thought Spider-Man was an enjoyable, but forgettable, standard CGI-enhanced action flick. Nothing tremendous, and it doesn't make me a better person or revolutionize life : It's just another movie that was ok, but it doesn't entertain beyond the 2 hours of watching it.

In any case, I find your portrayal of poor underdog Star Wars versus big bad Spiderman absurd. Firstly theaters, where there was demand, played it 24/7, starting right at 12:01 on the opening day: They knew that the hoardes of loyal Star Wars fanatics would be there to fill the coffers, probably many times over. The number of opening theaters between Spiderman and AOTC is largely comparable, with only a minor deviance, however the most telling number of all: Per screen revenue, has spiderman ahead on the opening weekend, with $31,769 versus AOTCs $25,317/screen (or are you going to claim that somehow AOTC demanded better, further separated seats for its superior audience?). As far as hype: Personally I thought that Spider-man had a lot less hype, and most certainly a lot less "We'll love it regardless" fanatics than AOTCs.

Re:This isn't a big deal

[Kombat]

This is a fact: Spiderman opened on around 1600 screens in North America, while Clones opened on around 1500 screens.

Uh, sorry, try again. Spiderman opened on far more screens than Clones, and you have both your numbers way, way wrong. Spiderman opened on around 7500 screens, and Clones opened on around 6000. And that is enough of a difference to explain away the revenues.

Re:tick. tick. tick.

[MaxVlast]

"Just" because it's a "space opera" doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be good. It still has to have a decent story and be interesting to watch.

I actually like AoTC very much. I'm talking more about TPM. Which was complete dross. _That_ was an uninteresting movie, no matter what you call it. Attack of the Clones, despite taking way to long to get off the ground, was surprisingly good.
---potential spoiler---
In fact, the scene on the clone planet in those sterile white corridors with those creepy sterile aliens reminded me the most of the fear of non-specific foreboding that I recall from when I first saw Star Wars when I was a young-un in the '80s.

I think...

[Dick_Fury]

JonKatz felt the need to aggravate me personally by writing this. I'd die of shock if he wrote something that I agreed with in any way. All the talk about all the money one brought in over another one in it's opening weekend and how many screens it showed on and whatnot is tripe, and I'm tired of hearing about it. It's like asking someone's opinion about a book they haven't yet read. I should think you could judge little more than the effectiveness of the promotion prior to the movie with that scale, which also seems like tripe.

***When George Lucas decided to resuscitate his epic after a nearly generation-long respite, he could have chosen at least somewhat of a classier route and put some limits on the marketing that now engulfs big movies. Instead he acted like Jabba the Hutt, gorging on every dollar he could get. The producers of Lord Of The Rings curbed the marketing and toy tie-ins with corporations peddling food and dolls to kids out of respect for Tolkien.***

The marketing for Ep II was about the same as any other movie. The hype machine for spider-man was pumping just as hard. And to say that Lucas is to blame for all the marketing is crap anyway. Who's to know if he or the studio has more to do with it?

And you're right; they didn't have any toy or fast food marketing for Lord of the Rings. *Plays with his lurtz action figure and takes a sip from his light up lord of the rings cup from BURGER KING*

***But what is Attack of the Clones about? The Skywalker genealogy? The Empire's evil origins? The birth of the Empire's Troopers? The rise and fall of the Queen of Naboo and her tormented lover and complex offspring? Trade unions and their relationship to the Galaxy? Legislative bodies and their place in galactic history?***

Give me a break. If you describe anything like that it sounds negative.

What is spider-man? A movie about the use of spiders for gene therapy? A warning to keep an eye on egotistical scientists? A vessel for the powerful acting of Randy Savage?

***Do we really care precisely how Anakin Skywalker got pissed off and turned to the Dark Side? Or would we -- especially the youngest among us -- be happy to see Yoda flashing his light-saber around and doing his Jackie Chan imitation?***

Are you being serious? This is the part that makes me believe I fell asleep and it's really April 1st and this is all a big joke. I try to respond to this but the inherent stupidity of the comment seeps into my skin through the keyboard and blur's my mind. It's like saying Do we really care how Peter Parker became a spider? Do we really care why Connor Macleod is cutting all these people's head's off? Do we care why Tyler Durden is blowing up a corporate campus?

***Holed up in his California cocoon, Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America.***

You're right. At the end of Ep II Obi-Wan and Anakin should have flown through the streets of New York towing a giant American flag and singing God Bless America. I mean, a movie in space? In a galaxy far far away? How un-American.

You're so full of crap I can smell it through the screen. They're two incredible movies. Why everyone feels the need to compare them is beyond me. I watched Ep II yesterday and the theater was packed. I wasn't sitting there thinking "this well help their profit margin" I was just happy a lot of little kids were sitting there enjoying the movie.

Lucas's Job was Far Tougher

[GroundBounce]

We can all certainly point out ways in which Lucas could have improved things (and there definitely are many), and any one of us would have written epsodes 1 and 2 differently. There are many valid criticisms that have been made, but on the other hand, Lucas had many more and far tougher constraints to deal with.

First and foremost was all the baggage that accompanied him from the first four movies. There are several things that created constraints here. The most difficult was that these episodes are prequels. Not only does the character and situation development have to be consistent with the pre-existing stories, but they must also converge to a single target time in some sort of consistent fashion. This is much more difficult than a sequel, where the writer has the freedom to diverge in any number of directions.

Another difficult area is public expectations. We can all point out areas where Lucas gauged things wrong in this area, and that's just the point -- it's very difficult to do, and very difficult to get right, even with sequels where there is only one pre-existing film, let alone a prequel series that follows three highly successful episodes. Any one of us could have done "better", and the film would have matched our personal expectations, but Lucas was faced with estimating the expectations of millions of fans from three generations who had already seen four previous movies -- not an easy task task by any stretch of the imagination.

Yet another area is complexity. As Katz points out, over the years, the Star Wars saga has come to deal with many kinds of social, economic, and even religious issues. Here, Lucas is being criticized for maintaining and even building on this complexity, but if he were to completely drop it, he would undoubtedly be criticized equally harshly by others. Again, the years of baggage that accompanies the Star Wars saga made it difficult for Lucas to do the right thing in everyone's eyes.

Spidey had none of this constraining baggage, other than generally following the premise of the original comic strip/cartoon series.

Granted, there were some very obvious goofs, such as the over-commercialization of the tie-in products (it certainly cheapens the saga), but given the constraints, it was very difficult (and will get even harder) for Lucas to come up with prequels that will satisfy everyone's preconceived notions of how things should be.

Choose one mega-corp over another, very rebellious

[tenzig_112]

I feel sorry for pundits. It is their job to find patterns in the seemingly chaotic world we live in. Sure, between 99 and 100% of these patterns are complete bullshit, but at least they are entertaining [sometimes].

Having said that, it would be patently ridiculous to assume that generational rebellion is exemplified in movie-goers deciding to forfeit their cash to one mega-corporation over another.

But then again, maybe I'm not in on the joke. It is a joke, right?

The Katz piece was hilarous [intentional or not].

Re:Some WTFs about AOTC

[Cirrocco]

The *REPUBLIC* has no standing army. Individual planets do.

The name came from Yoda, who coined, at the end of the film, the phrase Clone War. Why? Who knows? Who cares?

There was nothing special about the clones. There never was meant to *BE* anything special about them, except that they are plentiful, amoral, will follow orders, and come from good genetic stock, i.e. Jango Fett.

Does this answer your questions?

What Makes it Better??

[Bilbo]

People prefer good movies to mediocre ones.

Well duh!

Now, try to explain why you thought Spiderman was a better movie. Explain what it did that AoTC didn't do to keep your interest.

It may be the first time in my life that I've done this, but I actually agree with Katz this time that AoTC was bogged down by the weight of its epic size. (People say that LoTR suffers from the same problem, though I still think Tolkein was a better storyteller than Lucas.) However, given its context, I don't see how it could be otherwise. If we ever get to Spiderman II, III, IV and V, I think we'll see a similar trend...

Die.

[Gannoc]

The real lesson is, if you're trying to make great movies aimed primarily at the young, avoid pomposity, self-indulgence and too much self-reference. Keep the story simple, clear and touching.

I think the real lession is, if you're trying to make a good article for slashdot, aimed primarily at geeks, avoid pomposity, self-indulgence, and too much self-reference. Keep the article simple, clear, and not full of your shit.

The _FACT_ that a lot of people are ignoring!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bottom line:

Spider-man is a good movie. Spider-man has made $300 million and up since it came out 4 weeks ago.

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones is a good movie. Star Wars AotC has made $150 million + since it came out 2 weeks ago.

What is the criteria for a good movie? Two things...

1. Box office receipts.

2. Oscar nominations.

Well, since this year is not over yet which do we have to go on? #1. And it would seem pretty obvious that both movies are a success and are good from the public's point of view.

If you don't like Attack of the Clones, don't see it again, don't buy the merchandise, go back and watch the original.

- William

Perhaps....

[Anonymous Coward]

We're just looking at the original series through the rosey fog of childhood. If I go back to the original Star Wars and watch it now, I see horrendous acting and goofy dialog. But when I saw it in 1977 (age 4), that didn't really matter so much. It was just cool. I thought R2-D2 was funny. Now, I think Kenny Baker is funny (at conventions anyway) and R2-D2 was just an attempt to smash a bunch of classic comic sidekicks into a robot. Sure, Eps 1 and 2 had some problems, but so did 4, 5, and 6. I think it goes too far to say that the series has gone downhill. I think our expectations have just gone up.

Why we're disappointed

[r_barchetta]

I won't claim to speak for everyone but my experience with eps. I-II has mostly to do with how I have changed since the first ones came out. I was 4, 7 and 10 for eps. IV-VI. I expected less then than I demand now. So while I've had 20+ years to view Star Wars with nostalgia and enjoy the memory of how it changed my perspective of what sci-fi/action movies should be like now that's not an option for me. George faces several challenges:

1) Just being a Star Wars movie is not enough to be exciting, whereas with the first 3 (released, not chrono) just being Star Wars was enough. It was new and exciting. Even kids who did not get to see the first 3 have grown up in a world where Star Wars has been lauded as the model for sci-fi/action. (This is starting to change.) Culturally, the bar has been raised and I think today's children demand more from a movie than children did 20 years ago.

2) I'm an adult now. (Or at least, I masquerade as one.) I need more from a movie now than I did then. When I was 4 I didn't care if the dialogue or acting wasn't that great. It was fun and that's what was important.

3) Back-story? One of the things I realized after watching AOTC is that part of what made the first 3 feel complete was the presence of the back-story. The effect, while subtle, is important because it helps make the universe-of-the-movie more fully realized. You don't exactly notice it when it's there, but it's glaring when absent. Eps. I-III are the back-story, but there's no back-back-story and I think this makes everything feel a little flat and less-realized.

4) Related to 3, I already know the frickin' ending. It's hard to feel the suspense for Amidala, Obi-wan, Anakin or any other major character when I know they have to survive. (If only through ep. III) Which is not to say that their escape was boring, there's just less of an edge-of-my-seat factor when I never really believe they are in any danger.

And I agree that a Han Solo type character is a shortcoming of I-III, I'm just not sure that such a character would make up for everything else.

-r

Oh my, this is very bad indeed

[rkitts]

Personally I've never had cause to bash on Katz. His articles/prononucements/perspectives were, to me, harmless stuff which was probably ok if I actually cared about what he thought.

But a couple of things about this one are so far over the top I'm gonna filter this guy out now. First:

"...the young, the real avatars of culture..."

So, Katz, you either do not know what avatar means, or what culture means. Regardless, the frequency of your rather silly commentaries suggests that you have the time to look
up the big words which you clearly don't understand.

Second:

"...cultural and generational coup d'etat this month..."

Christ, what over blown crap. It's actually
funny (no, funny, like in HaHaHa, my side's
splitting, laugh out loud, funny. Funny. Really)
that you are able to demonstrate how absolutely
shallow your thinking and thus perspective is.
And you don't even know why (this is the funny
part).

Shut up man, you're making yourself look bad.
Honest.

---Rick

it's all about expectations

[serano]

SpiderMan hit the screens with practically no expectations.

Star Wars has an immense fan base, is very much a known entitiy, and is an ongoing saga. There are huge expectations for each Star Wars movie.

Worse, Star Wars suffers not only from high expectations but from wrong expectations. Many people want it it be something like an adult action/sci-fi movie. On the other hand, I think Lucas wants the movie to be aimed more at the under-12 crowd.

Katz is even more pathetic than usual

[Wraithlyn]

Mmmm.. it's a beautiful day outside. Looks like it's time to avoid working, slam the crap out of Katz, and burn some Karma.

• Spider-Man spent twice as much money on advertising as AotC.
  
• Spider-Man opened on nearly twice as many screens as AotC.
  
• AotC is the sequel to a movie that was generally considered very dissapointing.
  
• AotC had numerous scenes of painfully bad acting, caused by poor actor direction and a horribly written script. Spider-Man had pretty decent writing and acting.
  

But none of this had anything to do with Spider-Man making more money. No no no. It's a "cultural and generational coup d'etat". It's "The next generation [unseating] its elders". It's because "Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America."

Katz, you're a pedantic, repetitive, overly dramatic idiot. You continuously put out poorly researched, sensational, buzzword laden drivel. You put the anal in analyze. Is it hard to breathe with your head so far up your ass? You try and cram EVERYTHING into your little "post 9/11, disillusioned generation gap, geek alienation" peghole. It's so, so sad. About the only thing I can say in your favour is how much discussion your articles tend to generate. Of course, 80% of it tends to be people criticizing your "ability" as a journalist.

"The real lesson is, if you're trying to make great movies aimed primarily at the young, avoid pomposity, self-indulgence and too much self-reference."

Listen to your own fucking advice when it comes to writing.

Re:Katz is even more pathetic than usual

[Wraithlyn]

Good points....

Yes, I should have qualified the "pretty decent writing and acting" of Spider-Man with a "RELATIVE to Star Wars" clause... I'm not saying they'll be handing out acting Oscars for Spider-Man at any rate. :)

Don't get me wrong... I LOVED Attack of the Clones. It was way better than Phantom Menace, and it's the one I've already seen a second time, whereas Spider-Man I've only seen once. But I will still stand by my statement that AotC has hit a new low for bad writing and flat acting, even next to the ho-hum acting of the rest of the series. Like right at the beginning, when Padme gets "upset" (and I use the term loosely) when her double gets blown up. Or nearly everything uttered by either Anakin or Padme that's supposed to come off as romantic. Miserable, cringe inducing stuff. McGregor was great as Kenobi, Chris Lee was amazing as always, Yoda steals the show, the Emperor was bang on, Jango Fett was good.. but yeah. The two young leads desperately needed better lines and directing. WTF was Lucas thinking hiring Jonathan "Scorpion King" Hales to co-write!?

Anyway, faults aside, I thought AotC had a cool story, breathtaking climactic sequences, and MAN I can't wait for Episode III.

Silly analysis

[Junks Jerzey]

This is ridiculous. One Ultra Huge Heavily Marketed Movie is beating another Ultra Huge Heavily Marketed Movie and you're trying to read some sort of deep changing of the guard theme into it? Is this even worth disucssing? Both movies are making more money than 50 Slasdotters combined will make in their entire lifetimes. How can this be reasonably talked about?

The 5th Spider-Man Movie

[MrResistor]

Attack of the Clones is a completely different kind of movie than Spider-Man, and trying to make direct comparisons between the two is asinine. AotC has a wide base to draw upon, and has a responsibility to expand upon that base, which it does quite well. It's not as if everyone hasn't known exactly what it would be about for the last 15 years. The only surprise is in the details, which is exactly as it should be!

I think it's fairly obvious that there will be at least 2 Spider-Man sequels, as Hollywood tryies to milk as much as it can out of it. If the Spider-Man franchise ever makes it to 5 films, I think it's a safe prediction that you will be far more disappointed in it than you are in AotC.

Remember how great the first Batman movie was? How about The Crow? Superman?

How old were you when the A New Hope came out? I was 2 years old. Star Wars absolutely dominated my childhood, it was by far the coolest thing any of us had ever seen. Guess what? The new trilogy holds the same place among kids of similar age today. My daughter is constantly asking to watch The Phantom Menace, she would watch it 5 times a day if we let her, and most of my friend's kids are the same way.

The new Start Wars movies dominate their culture just as the first three dominated ours, and I'm sure that they will be just as disappointed in parts 7-9 as some of us are in parts 1 and 2, and for the same reason: Nothing will ever be as cool as it was when you were a kid. Get over it.

And enought with this "Post 9/11 America" crap. It had potential in the first 3 months or so to become a positive, unifying force, but now it's become nothing more than a blanket pulled over our eyes so we can't see Bush holding the door for Ashcroft, Hollings, and the rest to cart our freedoms out for auction to the highest bidder. "Post 9/11 America" is a code word for the same kind of blind patriotism bullshit that fueled the Cold War, but without the altruistic aspect of fighting for Democracy.

Re:It's very simple, really.

[Myrmidon]

Dude, you go chronologically... in the order they were made. IV, V, VI first. Anything else would be lame.

VADER: (in ep V)
No, *I* am your father!

LUKE:
Oh, yeah, I read that in history class.

Re:This isn't a big deal

[sahala]

I agree, but had trouble pinpointing exactly why the new Star Wars movies weren't as good as their predecessors.

...

There is no 'cool' guy to offset all the earnest Jedi assholes -- who are basically divinity students -- and just a little more exciting. It's like Beverly Hills Cop without Eddy Murphy.

I agree with the article you linked to...

I also at first had trouble pinpointing what I didn't like about AotC. After talking about it over a few beers I realized that one main difference between Ep I and II and the original three is that there is no team in the new movies.

In Ep. III to V, we had a constant team: Luke, Han Solo, Leia, Chewie, and the two droids. In story-telling reality it was really the "team" against the Empire -- the Rebellion and characters were just a backdrop. Although the main characters at times were separated and went on their own individually, they consistently re-unified and it was obvious that each character mattered to the other (even c3p0 -- R2 definitely showed a lot of love to that dude).

Now in the newest movies there is some attempt at a consistent team but it's really a movie about individuals. Everyone has their own path and obviously their own destiny, and some of these paths are interwoven, but I still came away from the movie feeling that the characters' relationships with each other weren't cohesive The Jedi are divine know-it-alls who see all but know nothing, Amidala's struggling with work-life balance, Anakin's got growing pains and testosterone surges, and Yoda's been watching too much kung-fu. At no point did I feel like celebrating because as a team they accomplished anything. Everyone's a hero.

A cohesive portrayal of a team isn't a necessary ingredient for a movie, although we do see this in Fellowship of the Rings. But if Katz wants to point out anything that relates to society/culture/humanity he can point to this concept, not the post-9/11 world order.

Spider-man, The Force is with him.

[Kibo]

Spider-man 0 scenes exploring the joys of self-gratification.

AoTC 1 Jedi Hand Trick.

When I pay to see solo masturbation scenes, I do not pay to see Hayden Christensen in them, nor do I expect to see Storm troopers in beta. That's just not what floats my boat.

Also, the graininess resulting from the low light levels (it's not like movie makers haven't known about the problems with this for a few decades) early in the movie, the shortened sets shot badly enough that it shows, the shocking misuse of CGI, the fact that it was as a whole rather uninspired and plotted for the up comming video game as much as anything else, the brutally painful dialogue, the poor makeup on Anakin's mother where you can see the freaking outline of the appliance, the fact she stole her death scene from Jim Carry in The Mask, the fact that the only enjoyment to be had from the movie are the little bits of decent eye candy, laughing at (but never with) it, and Crouching Jedi, Hidden Yoda.

Was Spider-man without blemishes? No. There's some dialogue in there I find painful. Like 2 or 3 scenes could have benefited from a handful of rewrites. But for the most part the movie was fun, funny, and telling a story worth watching. I don't know if I would say it was 4 stars like some reviewers, but it was a strong 3. The blemishes are small compared with the rest of the movie, and easily overlooked. With AoTC, finding the good is about as entertaining as searching for change in the sofa, and takes about as much effort.

Maybe its me, but when I'm watching a movie, whether or not it's for the solo masturbation scene, I generally don't like to be reminded I'm watching a movie, much less a poorly made one.