Slashdot Mirror
The Empire Stumbles
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.
This could be because the Spider-Man marketing and hype campaign began before Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was released.
There was no Spider-Man: Episode I.
You are not the customer.
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?
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
Oddly (since I've been a SW fan since it opened, when I was 10), I haven't seen either yet (due to a lack of time). But friends who have seen both like Spiderman enough to see it a second time (apparently it's a good date flick). I don't know anyone, other than a few obsessive fanboys, who want to sit through AoTC twice.
Best Slashdot Co
"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.
And "Episode One" wasn't eaxctly a thrill either.
You mean hand-wringing liberal rebel *scum*.
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
I saw Spider-Man, and thought it was fun, fast, refreshing, well-written, and sensitive. Then I saw AOTC, and thought it was pedantic, saccharine, slow, and irritating.
Give the "kids" some credit for being able to determine which movies are the most entertaining, rather than assuming that they are all following the instincts of mass culture. Also, it should be pointed out that the Spider-Man franchise is older than Star Wars by several decades.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Now go and do something something useful, please.
"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!
It's because episode one wasn't very good so it's put people off going to see episode 2. That's it. Duh. And what is that first paragraph trying to say. The words are English, but whole sentances make no sense.
Sig is taking a break!
There is a good chance however that with the release of episode 3, that once the series is complete you will see a major increase in not only box office revenues, but also in home video sales, I know that I for one will be buying the box set. And when one keeps in mind that the entire series is really one movie split into different parts, this is most likely one of the highest grossing movies to ever be released. In addition to this, it is a fact that sequels (and in this case prequels) historically don't generate much revenue (look at Rocky and Rambo) so when you consider the movie in light of this, I think it is pretty impressive that they were able to generate the amount of revenue that they did.
A novel about a party weekend in Vegas that one can read in 2 evenings is good journalism?? It reads like a trashy novel... oh, wait... that's what it is!
He should be more hands off - as he was in The Empire Strikes back. He wrote the story but let 2 other people write the screenplay version (Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan). He also turned over the directing and producing to others as well. Maybe this has some link to why its my favorite Star Wars
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
... Episode 1 was shit so the kids stayed away from Episode 2.
Police Academy 6 didn't do so good at the box-office, but I would suspect that the reasons for this are more to do with the legacy of past mistakes than the lack of love, loss, conflict and fantasy.
http://www.davetansley.com - you proba
Attack of the clones was ruined by the analog copying of the film... Surely it would have taken in 20Trillion in the first 2 days if you werent able to download and view a really crappy, pixelated copy off of the internet and view it for free...
What, the movie studios don't lie... do they?
#ifdef REALITY
How about the whole thing is getting tired?
#endif
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America
So for a film to be globally successful (read: profitable) it has to pander to the sensibilities to those still so upset by the terrorist attacks that they can't bear to see the World Trade Center depicted, innocently, on screen?
The sound you hear is the clock running out for Star Wars bashers.
Enough people are doing it now that it will soon be un-hip.
In fact, someday, it may even become cool to say you like it, albeit with a knowing wink, since you still have to prove that you're clever enough to realize it's just a space opera.
In the meantime, i'm going to see it a few more times and have a head start on all of you.
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.
Spider-Man is the next generation after Star Wars? Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but isn't Spider-Man an older story?
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
So...did Hans trade in his silver skates for a millennium falcon?
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Yeah, way to go us...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
Yeah, so the 3,800 or so screens that Spider-Man is running on (even more than Shrek), compared to ~1,000 less for Attack of the Clones has nothing to do with it, eh?
Rami doesn't give a damn if the theater is "Billy Bob & A Projector", Spider-Man will still show. At least Lucas wants to make sure every theater showing Star Wars is equipped with certain basics, such as digital sound.
You also need to look at the fact that people have been clinging to their Spider-Man comics their whole lives. Of course there's going to be a build-up, of three generations OR MORE who are eagerly anticipating a big budget version of the comic brought to life on film. On the other hand, most people have already seen FOUR Star Wars movies, and a lot of people who aren't die hard fans figure that they can wait a few weeks, or even for its video/DVD release before they see it. They've seen it before, and they'll want to see the new one, but they're in no rush to wait in long(er) lines at the theater to see it in the first week or two.
Only an idiot would say that Star Wars is losing it and Spider-Man "has it all" based on nothing but box office reciepts. If you continued to use that logic, Titanic would be "the best film ever made" while something like Blade Runner would be "complete crap."
Give me a break, and my 10 minutes back that I spent reading this topic and writing my reply.
Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America.
If ATOC had addressed 9/11 in a similar fashion as Spiderman, I would have picked up a light saber myself and done an Anakin-style massacre at Skywalker Ranch. While I personally thought Spiderman was better, I think the 9/11 patriotic stuff is contrived and trite at this point in time. For me, it made the movie worse.
"You see Mr Lucas, you suck as a writer. Really awful. And your directing...it's not very good either. So here's the deal. You write up an outline (no dialogue allowed) of Episode Three. You then hire a competent and hip writer, someone younger than, say, fifty. Said writer writes Episode Three, based on your notes. Then, you go and hire yourself a hot, fresh director--or Steven Spielberg, he'd do. You let them direct the movie while you sit back and collect lots of money. Everybody wins.
If you do that, we promise to go see it. And we will not burn you in effigy."
The coolest voice ever.
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.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Unfortunately, as usual, he botches his point again in trying to compare the two movies -- comparing these two on any level other than monetary is ridiculous: they are two different kinds of films. Granted, they both appeal to the tech/nerd/geek -- but for different reasons. People didn't flock to one or the other due to the mythological differences or because one or the other tells the same story but better... what tripe.
I vote for boycotting JKatz altogether.......we are from the government - we are here to help...
Dear Lord. I don't like to jump on board the "let's bash JonKatz" bandwagon, but the man surely has to be trolling.
Slashdot has itself posted links to intelligent essays that debunk the whole "Star Wars mythology" nonsense, and yet Katz continues to blather about it. The whole 9/11 thing is just ridiculous -- why *should* Lucas care about, or make any reference to, the incident? And the suggestion that the millions of kids nowadays are somehow no longer disenfranchised from government and politics is.. wrong, stupid, ignorant, ludicrous.
Spider-man less hyped than Star Wars? Hardly. The movie showed in more places, was massively advertised, tied in to various "synergic" marketing campaigns, etc. etc. etc. By contrast, AOTC's launch was incredibly quiet, at least from where I was sitting. Lucas made mistakes with the first film, yes - and has learned from them. AOTC isn't a great movie, certainly (not that Spider-man *is*), but to continue bashing it for the failures of the first movie is childish.
Yes, AOTC is convuluted and doesn't really know what it's doing. But to pitch it against Spider-man in this way doesn't serve any purpose -- they're very different movies, and Katz is just being lazy and sensationalist (once again). Why is this man getting paid to write such unmitigated nonsense?
But already I've seen attack of the clones... Temuera Morrison, wahey! An army of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, conquering the galaxy :-)
Oh, i guess it will get released outside the US one day, if the MPAA feels like it.
I would guess AOTC has been released in more theatres, just maybe not in the US. Maybe they need to update the accounting system to take into account global revenues.
1) Yes, the latest Star Wars is worst thing I've ever seen from Lucas. I can only hope that if there is another chapter, we can dispense with the love story for 80% of the movie and rely on action for 80%.
2) It is beyond disingenuous to cite the take from opening days of each movie without considering the number of screens involved. Spiderman was running on a many more screens than Star Wars: Attack of the Hormones.
This analysis article sounds like the overdramatized fluff that I subjected my proffesors to when I was in school. John Katz??? Who the ----?
Really, the difference in money intake of these movies is negligable, and partially due to the fact that the AOTC was shown on fewer theaters worldwide, and won't even open until next month in some countries.
There is no overarching generaltional statement in the ticket sales of these two movies. Since when do you judge a movie's impact on ticket sales alone anyway?
Thank you Dave Raggett
In a nutshell : Jon Katz bitterly dislikes AoTC, seems to have liked Spiderman.
Now why is this newsworthy for a second (or is it third) time ?
According to boxofficmojo.com, Spider-Man spent $50 million on marketing to Attack of the Clones' $25 million. Doesn't sound like Spider-Man was lacking in a hype budget. Looks like the production budget for Spider-Man was higher than AotC by $15 million as well.
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
Americans like jingoistic films?
:-)
Tell us something we didnt know
no sig.
I agree. Jon Katz, your articles are nothing but wind music. Plenty of bluster, very little substance.
Jon,
:p)
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.
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.
Do you like German cars?
..is a BLASPHEMER.
You talk of spiderman, and that it perhaps will overcome Star Wars.. You have joined the Dark Side.
Yoda "Evil is he, Jon Katz... Yeeess"
Are you out of step or what?
/then/ to suggest all of this means some sort of paradigm, generational shift ... and here I thought his film reviews were pompous and self absorbed.
Maybe because Episode 2 wasn't shown on as many screens, it has to be blamed on "the kids" (what? the same kids that invented the internet?) decided that another commercialized story is somehow more "pure" than another -- and to suggest that Spider-Man, put out by the studio of fake movie critics, and marketing folks disguised as happy movie goers is somehow the antithesis of hype -- jeesh.
And
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
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
Did someone use the flag to squash Spider-man?
(Me thinks slashdot needs an editor)
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Here in Quebec there was a large scale boycott by independant theatre owners because of the conditions Lucas & Fox were imposing. While they were playing episode 2 it had to be in the biggest room and had to play for a minimum of 7 weeks. Small theatres can't afford to have their big room monopolised. And if that wasn't enough they were demanding 70% of the profits instead of the normal 60. I haven't seen Star Wars yet but I've seen Spider-Man. Not by choice, simply by convenience. If I wanted to see Star Wars I'd have to drive to Montreal and I don't have the time.
"We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal."
... is: he doesn't understand acting and how to portray characters on the screen. He's great when it comes to technical details and CGI, but unfortunately he can make even the best actors seem wooden and amateurish. His fumbling attempts at romance just made me cringe.
For crying out loud, Spiderman opened in almost *twice* the number of screens as Attack of the Clones! Lucas refused to let it show on *any* screen unless the cinema guaranteed it four weeks in that theater. So Lucas was jerk about distribution, and he paid for it. But when one film has almost 50% more seats available to it in the first week than another, you'd *expect* it to take more money. It's surprising AOTC did as well in comparison. But don't take it as some measure of Star Wars' failure.
-EvilMagnus
If you compare the movies 1 on 1, then yep, Spiderman is doing better then EpisodeII. However, what SERIES has pulled in more money? Call me when Spiderman 6 is out and we'll compare numbers for those 6 vs the 6 Star Wars movies. I would lay money that Star Wars outsells Spiderman... several times over.
If you want to talk about the generation gap, etc, you have to talk about staying power. Star Wars has much greater staying power than pretty much any other series. Liken Spiderman to Batman... the first one was great and they went downhill (very far downhill, IMHO) from there.
Nosce te Ipsum
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!
Umm... There are like a million things that impact a movies' success in the first few weeks. I think it's rather hasty to select reasons that suit one's own agenda, and then provide no research/evidence to back one's argument's up.
Spider-man opened on a hell of a lot more screens, for starters. Interestingly, the Spider-man brand is actually *older* than the Star Wars brand, so it is entirely possible that it's actually getting more older viewers than Star Wars, rather than Katz's statement that a new, younger generation has chosen Spider-man. Let's also not forget that Spider-man has got a decently acted romantic storyline, which makes it a better date film.
Really, there are just so many reasons, it is silly to draw conclusions without some research.
sigs are a waste of space
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.
Lucas has lost his touch!
Plus, he's bogged down in all of this political BS, trying to teach people a little american history and political theory (I'm sure he envisages small children asking "mommy, what's a republic?"), trying to live up to his earlier achievements, trying to say something of Significance.
And failing miserably in the process.
Spidey just has to be a good movie. With AOTC, Lucas had to live up to the legacy. And blew it.
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Media critics love to compare gross sales of film A to gross sales of film B. But are they adjusting for inflation ( in ticket price? )
I saw Star Wars for $1.50 in 1976. I saw Spiderman for $9.00 in 2002.
What does it mean for Spiderman to gross more than Star Wars if a ticket price is 6 times what it was when Star Wars was released?
For once, I'd like to see a well-researched statistic which actually compares the number of tickets sold rather than gross sales. Then, perhaps, you could point to a trend.
-S
It's also important to note, however, that Spider Man opened in considerably more theaters than Star Wars. I *believe*, though I'm not sure, the number was somewhere between 1500-2000. That makes a BIG difference in the money that Star Wars pulled in.
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?
and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
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.
[|]
Well, there's also the fact that opening weekend for Spiderman saw the movie playing on hundreds of screens thousands of times a day here... One 12 screen theatre had ONLY Spiderman, all day from 10:00am.
Star Wars opening weekend? A couple dozen theatres showing on a couple screens, making for hundreds of shows a day.
Didn't Katz say something in there about how the less hyped movie was Spiderman? Funny... there was a whole lot of money tossed into hype, specifically to get the movie on more screens for more viewers, in order to try to win viewers away from Clones. It was only in the second week of Clones' run here that it was opened up into more of a wider set of times.
All this "biggest weekend" and "biggest grossing" movie is crap unless you compare A) the number of screens the movie was shown on B) correct for inflation C) factor in promotional and tie-in budgets...
--- http://foo.ca
I have a long standing argument with my friends about ATOC; I thought it was poorly assembled, they thought it was the "greatest movie EVER!" One reason I am staunch in my critique of the film is that not a single person can speak with me about the story of the film, which leads me to believe that the story has several problems and holes. I was impressed by the visual effects, I was impressed by the soundtrack, I was even impressed by Yoda doing backflips and kung-fu....but that's all it is: impressed. I usually don't agree with Katz on anything, but I agree with him that Attack of the Clones was a lot of hype with lots of glitz and little story-telling.
However. I don't think that Spiderman strayed far from the hype engine, either. I wasn't dramatically impressed by the film, but I was at least taken in by the story. It provided a solid enough basis that the glitz, glamour, and cool CGI was more than just bright lights and sound.
I highly doubt that the modern youth will suddenly decide that hype is bad. It will be with us a while longer, even if we all hope to see films that have a solid foundation in story-telling.
I have no desire to reach nirvana.
Yes we care. Can't you remember when you were a kid and wondered how Anakin Skywalker turned into Darth Vader? Aren't you still wondering how Anakin/Darth becomes half machine?
I swear to God it's some en vogue thing to bash Star Wars. Jon, how would you tell the story of the birth of Darth Vader without showing what led up to it? It's not like people go bad by turning on a switch, it's usually small transgressions over time that make the next one easier to commit.
Bah, I'm rambling. Was Phantom Menace a decent movie. No. Was Attack of the Clones? Yes.
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.
All about me
I've got nothing in particular against Mr. Katz, but the only reason I read this story was because the paragraph on the front page was utterly meaningless. I couldn't figure out if it was a good star wars bit or a bad one...and who knew it had anything to do with spiderman?
As far as the rest is concerned, what should be clear to even the most casual observer is that Attack of the Clones was mediocre, and Spider Man (while I haven't seen it personally) is apparently very good. It only makes sens that a good movie will make more money than a mediocre one that is simply riding on the coat tails of past success.
You can go on all you want about love stories and heroes and whatnot, but I think if Attack of the Clones had good acting and a better script it could've been a much better film, even with a similar plot.
Just my little opinion.
It's good to know that JonKatz has bought into the myth that Star Wars is some sort of epic drama. It's not. It's a saturday morning Sci-Fi serial, nothing more. If you expect the movies to be some soert of life-defining experience,then you are blessedly mistaken. AoTC was as good as Empire in my opinion, and I am an obsessive SW fanboy. But I never bought into the Power of Myth interpretation. I always saw SW as a 1950's-era space opera/science fantasy, and through those lenses, AoTC rocked. Lucas didn't rape anyone's childhood.. They raped themselves by building a nostalgia wall around three mediocre, yet genre defining movies of the same caliber as Battlestar Galactica
Stop pretending to be a geek, pick up a copy of UNIX for Dumbasses and learn something. Jesus, can you get any more vapid? Spider-man vs. Star Wars? Fat ass Comic Book Store owners are now laughing at you.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
For months, all I saw on TV were Spider-Man ads, major hype in newspapers, magazines & comic strips, and all I heard on the radio were the two big hits from the Spider-Man soundtrack (as the DJ's would constantly remind us): Sum 41's "What We're All About" and Chad Kroeger & Josey Scott's "Hero".
Yet I didn't see a tenth of the advertising for AtoC (and it seemed like a lot less than they did for the Phantom Menace). I believe Lucas intentionally cut down on the merchandising and marketing partnerships with big companies like Pepsi (who owns Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC) this time round, for whatever reason.
The younger generation spends half their TV time watching MTV, and a constant barrage of videos & ads for Spider-Man vs. the occasional ad for AtoC means the Spider-Man marketing folks knew what they were doing.
I've seen both, and although they're flawed in various minor ways, I'm rate them awfully close.
I was 12 when Star Wars came out and it's not my fault Lucas waited until I was 37 to get as far as the fifth film, so I don't want or expect the same sort of film that I did when I was 12.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
From everything I had read and from talking to other people, it seemed that Star Wars has the simple disadvantage of not playing in nearly as many theaters - I thought the number was about 1/3. From what I recall it's a combination of Lucas beeing more choosy and Spiderman being deliberatly pushed to as many theaters (and especially screens within a theater) as possible, much more so than any other movie before... I think the theater I saw spiderman in had about six screens going opening day.
I did like Spiderman a lot. But again because of the theater issue, I had no illusions about the movie taking in more money than Spiderman, and the numbers are in line with what I'd think they would be. The whole story seems to need a big old helping of "Never Mind" tacked at the end...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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!
Rather, the expectations of its fans and moviegoers stumbled. Those that have yet to see the movie are probably waiting for the home version.
Hello! These are the same conglomerates that fund MPIA and RIAA (Sure you remember these acronyms these are the acronyms that brought you other fun acronyms such as DMCA, COPA and others). Lets drop the "free media" for the fat-cat media conglomerates and expand our horizons on shashdot to truly innovative arts and letters.
Episode1 was not very good. People haven't forgiven Lucas for that. But to say this is silly:
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
Whatever, goof. When I was watching Episode 2, there was no generational lines. There were little kids, teens, "young adults," and old folks all in awe and loving it. Episode 2 was a great movie. It will survive in the theatres a while.
Spiderman, on the other hand, had only a 15-30 crowd, and then a crowd that *really* looked like it need to get a life. Not the same cross-generational appeal. It will survive a long while as well, but...its not going to be the kind of movie that you'll have your kids watch 20 years from now.
Episode 2 is also in like half the # of theatres as Spiderman. There is a reason for that, yes...but the reason doesn't change the fact that when I went and watched it (again) last night it was still sold out.
Was Spiderman better? Does what entrances and us change? I say no on both accounts. Spiderman was more fun (and allowed for actual acting, too!) but...it was more like just watching a goofy fantasy of sorts. Episode 2, beyond any "selling out" that Lucas has done (gawd I've been sick of that term for years) was still a great story. It was an adventure. And it was very good.
I love Star Wars as much as the next person, but what was with:
the really bad wooden acting - I had no problem with the acting in Ep1, but Ep2 really sucked
the really corny lines - I mean how many cliches could they pull out for the romance scenes?!?
everything looked 2D. Take one CG background and shoot the actors standing in front of it giving dialogue. It looked so fake.
cliched camera shots - that big climatic battle when the camera zooms up to the troop carriers - like watching some b-grade Vietnam war movie ...
I could go on and on but I think you get the point. If I could delete Jar Jar Bink from Ep1, I would quite confidently say that Ep1 was a better movie than Ep2, and neither compares to Spiderman.
"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.
I didn't grow up with Spider-Man at all. Before the movie came out, I didn't know who Mary Jane, et al were. I knew that there was a guy named Peter who had been bitten by a bug and turned into some sort of spider-enhanced man. That's it. I loved the movie. (And I'm extremely arachnaphobic, to boot. I had to close my eyes during the big Columbia University spider scene in the beginning.)
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Titanic...over $600M at the box office. Enough said.
I would suppose that this is because it has a more generic appeal than a narrow genre like 'Sci-Fi'. The problem that Lucas is facing is that special effects are no longer a trump card for a movie, the kids these days expect nothing less.
So what's left with episode I & II is some tragically bad acting, corn-ball dialogue and blatent angling for post-release merchandising. And that ain't going to generate any 'special effects' at the box office.
Basically the only thing keeping the heart beating on episodes I through III is loyalty to the originals. I personally don't think Spiderman is any kind of cultural Zeitgeist though...was a good movie that a family could go watch (good for box office takings) but no Star Wars IV/Matrix/Blade Runner...
May the midichlorians be with you.
Ive been hearing this argument for weeks, but the fact is neither side seems to get the background facts in order before spouting off.
First off Spiderman is a standalone movie, no prior experience required. Second the film premiered on a friday against nothing else of note, plus it premiered on nearly 1000 more screens. Third who cares? I enjoyed them both, whats with having to pick sides anyway. I liked LOTR, Spidey and Episode 2 and will probably like Matrix Reloaded and etc...its just entertainment people..enjoy it.
That said, I guarantee that spidey will be a bit long in the tooth long before Spiderman V. (Superman Quest for Peace anyone?)
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.
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.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Do not discount the chick-ocitude of Spiderman. That right away nearly doubles the market for the picture.
Spiderman 2 will have more chickness and probably some orphans and puppies and unicorns too.
Clones didn't do too badly considering it was the first major motion picture, aparently written entirely by a machine.
in looking at number of screens shown (sony is in the same megacorporation that owns star/loews theatres, and that helps get the big screen count), and advertising dollars spent?
spiderman opened on 3876 screens, episode ii opened on 3161. sony spent $50 million on advertising, lucas spent around $35.
not to cut episode ii any slack. i just thought that if you're going to rip on star wars, there's plenty of valid points, without resorting to painting with the JonKatz(tm) 'Broad Buzzword Paintbrush'.
i would say that spiderman won because of -better- storytelling, not necessarily simpler (a third grader could come up with the drivel in episode 2.).
hey, i choose spiderman over episode ii myself. but not because i'm bucking mega-hype or sellouts. i prefer it, because episode ii is -that- bad. i also choose xmen over spiderman, and unbreakable over xmen. for reference.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
In my opinion the fundamental problem with AOTC is the lack of a grand story line, somethign to sink your teeth into and ruminate on. The first two films could have been apocryphal. The story began in episode 4 and was carried through to the end in 6. These early films provide some background information but have no story on their own. This is why they seem to lack inspiration and leave no lasting impression.
um, i think i would have been even more dissapointed in lucas if he would have bent in response/respect to the events of 9/11, although there was a great disturbance in the force that day.
I want 2D games back.
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.
If he had gotten get the girl, it would have made the part where he found she was his sister somewhat less palatable for a family audience.
Seriously though, Luke certainly seems to enjoy his snog with Leia in The Empire Strikes Back, and the Luke/Leia/Solo love triangle subplot is played out right up to the end of The Return of the Jedi ("You love him don't you?", "Yes", "OK I'm off", "No wait, he's my brother", "Phew!" (smooches)) Does anyone else find this slightly strange?
It seems all the people here are either so pro Star Wars that they are oblivous to anything that would make the movie less then pefect, or they are so sick of all the rabid Star Wars fans that they will say they hate it out of spite.
I didn't think AOTC was too bad, at the same time, if it hadn't been for the original trilogy, I never would bothered to see it at all. I did find the first 2/3s of the movie extremely slow, whereas I enjoyed Spider Man the entire time.
I don't care what any fanboy says. The first hour of AotC had horrible writing/acting and the second half had no plot but was "action packed"... so I would have to give AotC a 30% entertainment value for lack of any good acting but +5% for Yoda's Kick-ass scene.
Sitting through AotC was bad the first time but suicide educing the second (I assume). But I was thrilled and entertained throughout from Spiderman the second time I saw it.
It has nothing to do with different tastes of different generations... but has everything to do with the quality of each movie.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
The real issue with the current Star Wars franchise boils down to 2 points: 1) Star Wars movies are made for kids, and most of us who saw them as kids are seeing the new ones as adults, thus we are not the target market 2) Americans have become so incapable of following multiple storylines in a movie that they dislike those movies that do have more then 1 plot line. Point 1 is pretty self explanitory. We no longer see a Star Wars movie with the eyes and curiousity of a 10 year old. When I went to see Clones for the second time, I was listening to a kid about 8 years old sitting behind me talk with his dad prior to the movie. He was in awe. Those of us in our 20s and 30s have adult perspectives and are no longer thrilled by a basic action movie with multiple stories intermingled. Point 2 has been coming for some time. New complicated movies that have more then 1 plotline are to complex for the typical American these days. When I saw Brotherhood of the Wolf and the theater it was truely amazing. Several storylines, awesome dialog, although subtitled, and a whole tie-in with history. After discussing the movie with friends they found it complex and incomprehensible. Yes I live in the U.S., and my friends are quite bright as a general rule. But they are stereotypical in there viewing of movies.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
I used to think that I couldn't write, that I just didn't have the inspiration. After actually reading your dribble, I am insipired. If you can actually make a living on sell this shite as journalism or even something to read, I know I can at least be *ok*.
Holed up in his California cocoon, Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America.
And just what the hell is this? It would sundenly be *good* to re-edit the whole moive to make it more patriotic? That part with the bridge in Spiderman is SO post 9/11 it's not even funny. I mean how the fuck does that suddenly fit in? It's there to capitalize on 9/11. Maybe if they replaced the sith lords with Osamma bin-laden look alikes you'd be happier... damn. I'm with the trolls on this one, you suck dead dog ass, in a major way!
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.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
they're just movies. Besides, Clones played in less theatres, and kids are just plain stupid and relative to the rest of the movie fare out there, they threw away just as much money at both Spiderman and Clones.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
So kids turned their backs on Star Wars? I guess that's why Episode II is number one two weeks running, and did almost twice the business Spidey did this past holiday weekend.
The said truth is that Katz is about three years behind the times, when Lucas bashing was at it's peak.
Also, did he even see the film? Or did he just go to alt.movies.reviews.i.hate.lucas and read reviews there?
My karma is in a nose dive
Well, there's also the fact that opening weekend for Spiderman saw the movie playing on hundreds of screens thousands of times a day here... One 12 screen theatre had ONLY Spiderman, all day from 10:00am.
Actually, that's not a fact. This is a fact: Spiderman opened on around 1600 screens in North America, while Clones opened on around 1500 screens. That's not enough of a difference to explain away the revenues.
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
One thing I would like to point out here, Peter Parker perhaps did not get the girl but that is part of the story. If you read the comics, they didn't become a couple for a long while. Now they are married or something but thats besides the point!! I sure would hope Luke wouldn't "get the girl" because the girl is HIS SISTER!!! It is bad enough when they kiss, but if he "got the girl" that would have been... WRONG!
A morning without skin cancer
A morning without cat shit on the carpet
A morning without a dead car battery
A morning without a premenstral female
Feel free to add your own.
You get the picture. Why, on a Monday morning no less do we get subjected to his mindless drivel.
They stab it with their steely knives,
But they just can't kill the beast.
Here are two factors that need to be taken to account.
Screens!
From Hollywood.com:
3,161 theaters for SW2 and 3,615 theaters for Spidy.
Teens!
I went and finally saw both movies yesterday. The digital showing of SW2 was awesome, and sold out all day long. Spiderman was full, but not sold out.
The demographics were completely different. There was a huge number of teenage and younger girls in the Spiderman showing. Way beyond what you would expect for a comic that is normally a male audience. I would estimate half of the people seeing it were mothers and groups of 10-15yr old girls. It was weird being in the same theater.
SW was mostly older people, with a good mix of the sexes. Lots of dates.
There - make of it what you will.
Because they went to see Spiderman? I can't wait to see what they rediscover from MIB 2. Virtue, fortitude, courage, brighter teeth and fresher breath, I suppose. William Bennett, call your office!
Am I the only one who read the summary paragraph for this story multiple times and still didn't understand what he was talking about? I'm certainly not the fastest fish in the tank, but I can hold my own. Reading that paragraph gave me flashbacks of reading Finnegan's Wake in college.
I just want to know if other people shared this experience, or if I just need more caffeine this morning.
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?
... followed by Green Lantern and Silver Surfer on the big screen. Not that Lucas should give up and go home.
I think the best thing the success of Spider-Man indicates is that we'll see Spider-Man 2, 3, 4, 5,
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
...Only Katz could write such a lengthy, flowerly, pretentious, but ultimately meaningless and empty condemnation of style over substance.
Cheers
-b
You cannot fairly compare the two films box office numbers unless you take into account that Spiderman opened on 1500 MORE screens than AOTC's did. Lucas put runtime restrictions (ie, if you open 4 screens with 4 copies, they have to run for 4 weeks) on copies so smaller theaters not wishing to commit 4 seperate screens for 4 weeks opted to only get 2 copies of the film. Spiderman had no such restrictions. I will admit that over time, this is less and less relavant, but it definately has an impact on first weekend revenues of which your entire piece is based on.
Less movie availability == less revenue.
I did a brief google search and found http://www.the-numbers.com and Spiderman is STILL showing on 700 MORE screens than AOTC.
Instead of basing an entire article on speculation on the hollywood movie industry why couldn't you have waited until September and gotten some solid facts after all the summertime 'blockbusters' had played out and written a more objective article instead of one based soley on market projections.
I think we'd all enjoy a nice cold beverage. -David Letterman
hehe...in ALbanian , mire translates to well or good, so I got a good chuckle out of that .sig.
And even after that, it's still crap. Movie quality != better box office. Katz (and others) have completely bought into the movie studio's line.
Next thing you know, we'll be saying that just because Microsoft sells more copies of Windows, that it's a better OS.
I just read the rest of the story after being annoyed at the lack of mentioning the screen count...
After reading the rest of the verbage, I found this:
Do we really care precisely how Anakin Skywalker got pissed off and turned to the Dark Side?
Well, actually yes!!! Why the hell do you think I am sitting through all these early movies. Sure the Yoda stuff is cool, but that's not why I'm there. My favorite parts are watching how the plot to overthrow the Republic and the Jedi unfolds. The battles are just a bonus as far as I'm concerned.
I normally rather like Jon Katz stories, but this one leaves me mystified.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
US box office takings dont mean much, Spider-Man opened on more screens than Star Wars did because of Lucas going all digital and only allowing approved cinemas to show Attack of the Clones. Star Wars opened worldwide at about the same time, Spider-man opens about 2 months later in Europe. If you are going to be crass and look at the money earned as an indication of a good movie then at least give it a few weeks.
Spider-Man but it is just as much an hyped Hollywood blockbuster as Star Wars, and people going to see Star Wars does not preclude them from also seeing Spider-Man. This is not a revolution, it moving forward in the same direction.
All star wars fans know the dialog Lucas writes is total ass, and the stories are hokey and cheesy but enjoyable at best and annoying and cringe inducing (Yippee! Jar Jar, etc). Attack just does not really have the same mythical quality the original star wars.
Spider-Man is not a sequal its new and fresh. lets see if they can manage not to bastardise the franchise like Joel Schumaker did to Batman. Spider-Man has Kirsten Dunst in it. Spider-Man is a movie you might actually be able to convince a non geek girlfriend to go to.
As a comparison between SpiderMan and Attack of the clones this might have been an interesting article if Katz had not felt the need to make a grandiose bulshit statement in the first paragraph.
More importantly - this is just movies guys, NOT religion. Well maybe to some of you it is a religion, but not everyone.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
Just a minor point. As I recall, and have read, Joseph Campbell really didn't help Lucas craft the mythos. It was more of an after-the-fact thing that Campbell recognized and Lucas then picked up and ran with to inflate his own 'artistry' and level.
It's not a vast work of high art. However, it's the early cinema serials taken to the pinacle. Just spend a weekend watching the old Buster Crabbe serials, then watch Episode IV. From the settings (the common desert-type area), to the music to the cuts, wipes and dissolves, it's clearly a loving tribute to Flash Gordon.
Even more than pulp sci-fi (which I loved as a Jr. High student, E.E. 'Doc' Smith and all), Star Wars is the direct evolution of Flash Gordon. Remember, those old 30's serials hit TV in the early fifties, right about when Lucas would have been around 10 years old (wich is around how old I was when Star Wars came out and I watched it). So one could easily see his childhood wonder and awe come through there.
Katz says:
The article he links says:
Geesh Katz, this is bad... even for you!
Post 9/11 america, post 9/11 america, post 9/11 america, POST 9/11 AMERICA
For the love of god, and post 9/11 america, not every damn thing has to be referential to post 9/11 america!!! These movies are FANTASY; you're article said so many times. I, for one, try to let my mind slip into any movie I watch. I don't go every time so that I can watch something that reminds me of the literal real world. If Spider-Man had a clear reference to 9/11, then great; it was subtle enough that your pedantry radar picked it up and my thrill at watching a guy fly on a string wasn't cheapened by an unnecessary symbolic reference.
Attack of the Clones may be blown out by Spider-Man, but guess what, it's not because an army of proletariat 9-year-olds had epic internal dissonance about the cultural symbolism in their action movies. As others have already posted within five minutes of your pablum hitting the front page, there are many factors, including number or screens opened on, movie quality as an independent entity, the fact that spider-man is novel and star wars in a lot of ways isn't, etc. This stuff makes me sick, but for some reason, I am drawn uncontrollably to read your tripe. It's like the drug dealer from the movie "GO" said, "family circus.....every day, I know it's in the corner of the paper, and I hate it, but I am uncontrollably drawn to it. Every day, it's there, just waiting to suck."
Nothing personal, but your analyses make me want to die, Mr. Katz.
David
give me a break. comparing lucas's treatment of the vader story in episodes 1 & 2 to robert caro's biography of lyndon johnson is a staggeringly unfair thing to do.
caro's books are gorgeously executed studies of the nature of power and control, and he is a master of singleminded dramatic buildup in biography. lucas no longer knows how to tell a story, and he certainly doesn't know how to demonstrate cause and effect in a character study with any degree of subtlety at all.
to me this suggests that you have not read the lbj books, or have read maybe the first chapters, or read reviews of them. to mock the books because they are exhaustive and long is a grotesque oversimplification-- something that i have realized over the past few years of katzness on slashdot that you are more likely than not to indulge in.
i used to be a katz defender. now i just hit ignore, and i get angry when i get suckered into reading your articles.
bah.
"It's OK, my sheet's got a hole in it!"
Someone in the media industry (I don't know if it came directly from the MPAA) stated that one of the factors in AotC's "poor" box office performance is the bootleg that was released a week before the movie. Fans downloaded and watched the movie, saw that it sucked (or even if it didn't quite "suck" it wasn't worth the price of admission in a theater) and decided not to go. That's their "proof" that movie piracy is destroying the entertainment industry.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
When did the aliens steal the George Lucas who managed to write the script for Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope and replace him with the brainless twit who comes up with sh*t like this.
(1) A giant inter-stellar (who knows how many star system) governmental body like the Republic has no standing army? The best that the Republic, which has trillions of citizens, can do to defend itself is an army of 1.2 trillion clones?
Ok, lets briefly forget the imaginary notion that any governmental body can exist without the ability to defend itself or prevent internal strife. Did the leaders of the Republic consider placing a public notice that unless the common guy on the street wants to see himself at the mercy of an attacking army of droids, he should grab a laser rifle and seek to defend his freedom?
(2) The Clone Wars. Where did the name come from? Wars generally are named by (1) Cause (2) Where they are fought. Wars are not named simply because a good portion of one side of the combatants happens to be clones.
What was so special about the Clones? Absolutely nothing. Their preferred method of attack that was shown in the movie's battlefield footage was swarming assault on foot into heavy laser fire.
This is just simply pathetic and incredibily lazy thinking on the part of Lucas. Having previously detailed a period of history that was referred to as "The Clone Wars", his attempts at realistically meshing plot with his previously detailed Star Wars history were just pathetic.
11 paragraphs in I was getting scared. I was really worried it wasn't going to happen, but then thankfully in the 12th, John doesn't dissapoint us, we get a mention of the WTC attack.
*breathes out*
StarWars:Episode 2 has broken $200M in only 12 days, which is faster than the pace set by number 4 all time US box office champ StarWars:Episode 1.
Spider-Man has yet to prove whether it can top or even come close to the $431M made by the last StarWars movie. Experts are guessing the film may gross over $400M and possibly as much as $450M, but it is still too early to be sure.
StarWars: Episode 2 is even more unpredictable at this point. It will be several more weeks before even the experts are willing to guess where it will land on the all time list.
Proclaiming Spider-Man the winner of the summer box office when the month of June has yet to begin seems more than a little premature.
-- Adam
So, what's the next Katz article going to be?
How about "Slashdot is Dying"?
In that star wars, one of the most popular movie series in America is about a rebellion led by some quasi religious sect against the great empire.
Don't you fools see!! Lucas is with AL QAEDA. WE ARE THE EMPIRE. WE ARE THE EMPIRE....SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE...erm...wait a sec...wrong movie.
Dude, its SPIDER-MAN!
Exactly how many years BEFORE Lucas even wrote Star Wars was Spider-man first published?
How is it that kids are seemingly solely credited with Spider-man's success in the box office?
My DAD(!) couldn't wait to see Spider-man, and if I recall, Star Wars gave him a headache.
Perhap you should switch to solely political commentary, because you're only making about that much sense.
And I'm extremely arachnaphobic, to boot. I had to close my eyes during the big Columbia University spider scene in the beginning.
Well that says it all, if arachnophobes are going to see Spider-Man what hope does clones have ?
The older we are, the less likely we are to want to go to a movie theatre packed with people who are going to interrupt us during the movie, kick our chairs and throw popcorn. I know that I avoid opening weekends becuase I WANT TO ENJOY THE MOVIE. Episode 2 will continue to do well at the theatres, consistently.
Harder.. Better.. Faster.. Stronger
How about the simple fact that Spider-Man was on more screens?
Another thing is, at least here in Dallas, there are 2 DLP screens, and everybody wanted to see the movie digitally. These 2 screens repeatedly sell out a day in advance but the screens showing the film version are not selling out. I waited a day to see the movie digitally instead of opting for the film version.
But I think that explaination is just a bit to simple for Mr. Katz.
What an amazing attempt to figure out why a quality movie is doing better than a boring one. Star Wars has always had weak writing and weak acting. Movie going audiences are no longer willing to accept a crap movie just because of gee-whiz effects.
As to trying to make a generational gap premise. Sorry, half of the audience going to see Spider-Man knows him from their childhood.
I'm not saying the geek-movie-torch has been passed to a new story-universe, but it's definitely been taken away from the Star Wars crap.
Ya Sure! You Betcha!, The_THOMAS
If you're thinking patriotism, you may be interested in yesterday's and today's editions of The Boondocks. I'm eagerly waiting to see it evolve over the week...
Is George Lucas greedy? Probably, but it's none of my business, and I don't care one way or the other. What I care about is watching the Jedi with the lightsabers and the vwing, vwing, unnnn-glayvin!
My point here is that there is *STILL* a generation of sad, pathetic little bastards sitting in their parents basement who love Star Wars *AND* Spidey. Don't think that just because Spidey made tons of bucks and AOTC has only made a lot of money that we aren't rabid fan-boys who zealously defend Star Wars in the face of overwhelming evidence that it was a bad movie!
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
Keep the story simple and clear for the kids, keep the story interesting to win oscars and keep the movie complex and thought-provoking to make the AFI 's Top 100 list.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Spiderman was just a better movie
I agree, but had trouble pinpointing exactly why the new Star Wars movies weren't as good as their predecessors.
There is a brilliant article here that does explain exactly why. The gist of the article is that the two new Star Wars movies are missing any sort of Han Solo character. 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.
There is a very insightful point in the article describing how the re-mastered Star Wars has Greedo shoot Han Solo first, making it look like Han Solo acted in self-defence, and effectively 'nicing' up his character. In the original, he shoots first. In the new movies, only robots get shot.
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
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.
Katz, you ignorant slut! How is it that Katz idiotic comments even get posted in the first place?
Star Wars Episode II was not directly aimed at the children like Episode I, unlike what Katz makes it seem. There were LEGIONS of pissed off fans when Episode I came out mainly because of the fact that it WAS aimed at children.
Spider-man was a good timely film, Katz managed to get that right, but it will never be a classic. In the next 5-20 years, Episode II's total profits for Theatre seats and DVD's will grossly dwarf that of Spidey's flick.
Just take a quick look at the music of all the real classics, what do you hear? Listen closely for the guitars and bass guitars, oh, what's that? You don't hear any? That's because the true classics have classicaly scored music! The force is strong in John Williams.
In any event, comments written by Katz are merely a cry for a flame war, full of trolls and llamas.
Look at these two sentences:
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.
Usually, and is used to combine two subjects or predicates together into one sentence. In this case he began a sentence with and, which is discouraged in basic writing classes because it is hard to use it well. I think Jon Katz didn't use it very well at all in this case.
What tense is each part of this sentence in?
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.
Past, present, present. It just doesn't flow. The second clause needs a qualifying preposition to really keep it moving.
Then, there is the dashes. 16 of them. That's quite a few dashes. I think he over uses this and makes his piece seem more like a a monologue you would hear coming out of a pseudo-intellectual at a coctail party rather than someone who has any grasp of the written english language. You can't write like you talk.
Several possible reasons.
Is this a sentence? Transitions are an important part of any piece of writing. They are used to link ideas between eachother. Jon Katz should look into them. You can find a handy list of them in any beginner's writing book.
Since when is jokier a word? It doesn't even sound right when you say it out loud. Check out dictionaries and thesaurauses. They have lists of words to describe the concepts that you are thinking.
Hans Solo. Maybe you did run it through a spell checker? Next time, try a grammar checker... and don't just hit change for every occurance.
I would have given him a C+ and used up a lot of red ink on this paper. Nothing special here. No real ideas. Sounds like he read Newsweek and the New York Times and then maybe some blogs about the new Star Wars movie and somehow came out with bunch ideas that he somehow decided, if he were to put them down on paper, would be considered original.
adam
based on BO sales is simply silly being that Spiderman was shown on something between 1000-2000 more screens than Star Wars. Also Star Wars was twenty minutes longer than Spidey which will make a difference on running times nationally. If both Spiderman and Star Wars were shown in the same conditions as one another, then your interpretation might have some relevance. In fact, with the BO take being so close, I'd argue that Star Wars did better than Spidey being it was longer and on fewer screens. But this really means nothing besides rich studio execs raking in the obscene amounts of cash.
Btw, is anyone else a little tired of the whole Joseph Conrad myth thing being force-fed down your throat?
Just number me among the many who went to see AOTC hoping against hope to really enjoy more than just the pretty fight scenes. But if you caught this quote from Anakin, er, Hayden Christiansen, that should really sum up all you need to know about George Lucas.
Jack
First: $115 mill in 3 days = $38 mill per day.
$117 mill in 4 days = $29 mill per day, WITH a hugely popular competitor in the theaters, and the previous movie in the series being suck-alicious.
To call this a coup d'etat is hyperbole on a par with, well, calling Spiderman a great movie. Or calling Star Wars (any) a great movie.
"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."
I think your lack of a point is suffocating beneath your style's ponderous inertia and weight.
Relevance? Maybe Spiderman was written by a real writer, and directed by a real director, instead of some disproportionally successful mediocre director.
George Lucas' problem is not that he tremendously sucks (Phantom Menace notwithstanding). The problem is that he is SO wealthy and SO surrounded by ass-kissing lickspittles that nobody will tell him "George, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Nobody.
Film creation is never a production of an individual. It's a collaborative effort of hundreds, sometimes thousands, from the actor on the screen interpreting a role, to the gaffer making a judgment call on how to provide the best lighting for a reomantic shot. When one personality not only dominates but controls everything, well, the product is GOING to suck.
"Lucas created a brilliant film saga"
Ha. Again, what are you smoking? Firstly, the original story was ripped almost verbatim from Hidden Fortress. And I don't care how much retro-remembered history anyone spouts, the "brilliant" film saga was first a simple movie, a hastily written plot outline (that was fleshed to it's fullest by Irvin Kirschner and Leigh Brackett), and then started swirling around the toilet bowl of re-interpretation, inconsistencies, and mistakes. To imply that there was some great genius behind it's conception as a story arc, well that complete nonsense. The Star Wars series was written the same way you drive a car if you look just in front of you - jerky, reactive, and unpleasant to ride in.
"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 will agree wholeheartedly with Jon on this. One might even suggest it applies to web articles.
-Styopa
"Holed up in his California cocoon, Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America. "
/. But this time, he really made a parody of the parody of him, as it is portrayed by many of the /. users.
... Please, give me a break! The reason why Episode 2 doesn't sell well is that it is a bad and boring movie. Full stop. That's it. Nothing more.
...
Oh gosh, I can't believe it! So far, I had a problem understanding all those who hate Katz's contributions to
I always thought the comments on Katz's writing were unjust, but now I think they may have a point
And no, I am not post-9/11 traumatized, since I am not US american, unlike the moviegoers he apparently thinks about. I am not belittling the tragendy of 9/11, I am just getting sort of fed up of this being the end-all reason for just about everything. The movie would have sucked last year, too, just as Episode 1 was not exactly a good movie, and that was before 9/11, mind you
However, hammers just bang nails. They don't offer sociological theories based on events at the construction yard. I suggest that you go back to the movies, or TV, or whatever it is you do, and resist the urge to share your image of the world with the rest of us.
To the topic:
I think Katz has a good point. As someone who watched Star Wars a lot as a kid, I grew up loving the movies. There IS something missing in the new ones, even if they are movies very similar to Spiderman. I've seen EP I and II as well as Spiderman, and Spiderman beats them, partly because there aren't such grandiose expectations.
However, I'd still argue that the original Star Wars movies, (yes, all 3) are better than Spiderman. Katz is right about that irreverance and sense of humor that Han Solo brought to 4-6. That kind of wry and sarcastic humor made sure no one took it too seriously, whereas the new movies lack that kind of feeling.
I think that the fact that there is so much discussion about Star Wars points to the simple fact that it has a history in many of the readers here and that many people feel disappointed in some way by how the new movies failed to fit with their memory or expectation. Good, bad? I don't know, but it's still worth the cost of a ticket to see each one once.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Holed up in his California cocoon, Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America.
Of course, let's not forget that this film has been in production for nearly two years! To expect Lucas to dump the entire work and opt for something that seems more "touching in a post-9/11 way" is absurd.
The 9/11 attacks are entirely irrelevant. Lucas isn't making these movies to make people feel better about what happened last September...he's making them with the expectation that they'll outlive him by many years. In a decade, people will see Spider-Man for what it really is...an entertaining film with a cheap, corporatized bid for the sympathy of The American People thrown in at the end.
--Life may have no meaning, or, even worse, it may have a meaning of which you disapprove.
You can choose to not show Jon Katz stories on your front page in the preferences.
Seeing a post by Jon Katz is almost as bad as seeing the 20 or so comments complaining about Jon Katz.
To me, reading someone elses idiotic opinion helps me to soldify my own idiotic opinion.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
Horsefeathers. Are you saying that people wanted to go see "Clones" and couldn't find a ticket? That movie theatres, who are mostly struggling for their business survival, are turning away people who'd like to see a movie? Do you think that if they'd only put Hugh Grant's "About a Boy" on a few more screens, it'd have taken in a hundred million it's first weekend too?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Instead he just lets her rot for 10 years, doesn't even send a letter or anything (since he had to search around to find her). Maybe thats part of being a good Jedi, but lets face it: The queen would have hooked his mom up with some kind of a better job than slave.
The reason that spiderman trumped star wars isn't because it's a better movie or because of the love story. It's because it's probably the first marvel movie to have a plot that most nerds can appreciate - and it's an OLDER story, older than star wars. Spiderman has been around longer.
And you're wrong about the hype. Spiderman has been hyped just as much, if not more. Just look at the last few months of releases from marvel comics, and how many commercials are using spidey as a mascot now.
This whole "editorial" smacks of the inability to distinguish fact and opinion. "AOTC took in $100 million" is a fact. "AOTC sucks" is an opinion.
Learning to tell the difference can greatly help your writing. Maybe I'll want to read it again some day (like when you come off as suggesting new thoughts to me rather than telling me what to think).
Do we really care precisely how Anakin Skywalker got pissed off and turned to the Dark Side?
Yes. I've cared for years. And that's my choice to make, not yours.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
It is probably true that Star Wars won't beat out Spiderman at the box office. Spiderman, in most peoples opinion may be a better movie. But Lucas and his movies have not outgrown their audience.
Was it not the Star Wars campers that needed to be moved when Spiderman opened? I don't seem to recall droves of people camping out for Spiderman. When I walked in to see Spiderman, there were kids camped out with laptops watching the Starwars bootleg outside the door. The hype is still there and it always will be.
Spiderman was a long time in the making. It would have been just as successful regardless of Star Wars. Likewise, Star Wars would have performed just the same regardless of Spiderman. Spiderman was such a ground breaking move for the movie industry I'm surprised it didn't do better. Star Wars isn't a new concept and hell... we all already know what happens. So the droves aren't going to rush out to see it. I went to see Starwars on Saturday and I'll be damned if I was standing in that line. So I didn't make it till Monday so my $7.75 wasn't counted in the weekend earnings.
You can't compare the two movies at all. They are in two completely different situations.
Personally, I thought AotC was awesome. Except for the crappy romance scenes. They weren't quite like Han and Lea. But then, the mystery wasn't there either. We already know they are gonna do it. :-) A couple times!
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
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.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Talk about life imitating art. I think Lucas forgot why he was telling the story, once he realized "People are buying my crap!".
Just reminds me of Steve Martin in "The Jerk" when he was the 'Guess Your Weight' guy and found out he was charging a dollar for about a nickel's worth of CRAP.
You keep going until you die..."Me".
I read an online comic yesterday, I forget the name off hand, but one character basicly tells the other, Attack of the Clones is an Allegory of the 9/11 attack, the subsquent "War on Terrorism" and even goes so far as to imply GW Bush and Osma Bin Laden were/are in on it together. When the other character implies he is crazy, he suggests a bet that Lucas will be dead before Episode 3 can be made.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
The thing I don't get is Katz is going on about the kids of the new upcoming generation overthrowing the old generation's style of movie. Huh?
I think the audience when I went to SpiderMan on opening night was on average 10+ years OLDER than that of Starwars EP2 on it's opening night. The biggest reason Spiderman is doing well *I think* is because there are a lot of people who have been waiting 20 years for it to come out.
Comparing the earnings of Spiderman to AotC. Saying that Spiderman is breaking all known box office records, then claiming that AotC was somehow deficient for not achieving the same result.
Cheers,
leroy.
Katz, as usual, has well overstated his point with pompous terms and quotations, drawing on sources he doesn't fully understand, to come up with something that sounds really good, but is just false.
Of course Episode II is a more complicated story than Spider-Man: Lucas's fans demand an entire universe - a world immersive and pervasive, not just a story. Seeing it may be reflex to many of us, but those tiny tidbits of truth don't justify Katz's analysis that Lucas has some how "lost" to Spider-Man.
The fact is, Episode II is drowning under the weight of Spider-Man not because Spider-Man is a superior story, or even because of a simpler more myth-driven plot. Spider-Man is a success because it's a great movie. It's a joy to see because no part of it seems forced. It's well acted, well scripted, and well thought out. In a post 9/11 world, it gives its viewer empowerment. In a cinematic market full of forced, predictable love stories, it gives us something different - something more realistic maybe.
But gaze into the future, young jedi. Episode II (like Episode V) is a transition movie; it is meant to set up Episode III. Let's not forget what's in the box: Anakin turns to the dark side, Luke and Leia are born, the Jedi are slaughtered, the Republic collapses, and the rebellion is born. This is cosmic (pun intended) stuff. Spider-Man is a good movie, but there is no where for the spider opera to go now.
Lucas isn't losing at the box office because of the problem of myth; Lucas is losing at the box office because he's an idea man who never quite figured out how to make movies without sour moments. But I think, in the long run, people will rewatch Star Wars more than Spider-Man, just like they do other great comic book movies (like the first Batman.)
Oh my god, this is probably the worst post I've ever read on Slashdot. First of all, they were both only movies! They are only pure entertainment.. God, how can one get that much into the quality of a movie episode 2, when the first three were basically the same?! I dont know what you expect out of a star wars and a spider man movie, but it goes way beyond anything I have ever thought of. If these movies mean this much to you, you seriously need to get a grip.
Well once again flamebait Katz spews more garbage, and once again /. 'ers fall into his web 'o deceit! When will 'ya learn laddies!
He rants about the philosophical implications of a simple love/adven story (spidey) against the Lucas hyped saga...
Get outta here... what social implications, are there when kids choose to see more o' Spidey and less of SW ? Come on John.... What utter rubbish...
Will the real Jon Katz please stand up! Jon I know you can publish more meaningful stuff than this. Please! I beg you!
Digit over and out
"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt
I generally liked AOTC as well. I will like it even better when I can sit at home and MST3K it. I also thought that the bad parts of AOTC (any love scene, any one liner by mcgregor, any scene with 3cpo talking) were an order of magnitude worse than TPM.
There were also many scenes that were blatant sell-out type scenes that the purist in me sees as a blatant travisty to the universe (yoda, r2 flying, the jedi sacraficing themselves uselessly).
btw: Spiderman is decently mediocre; Maguire is perfect casting, the newspaper owner is hilarious and perfectly done, but the movie has no set pace, and Dunst just doesn't do it for me.
All I wanted to do was be entertained for a couple hours. The movies in question were not documentaries. Their job was not to provoke social awareness or peace on Earth. It's a freakin' movie!
--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
I have a book from the late 70's -- authorized -- going through and showing with stills (and pictures from the sets, locations, etc.) from Star Wars and older SciFi/Adventure/Comedy where some of the influences came from. (C3PO/R2-D2 from Laurel and Hardy, for example).
As Steven Hart pointed out in his Salon piece, without EE "Doc" Smith, there's probably no Jedi.
The Campbell thing didn't come up until 1980 or so, and like the recent films, seems to be some sort of huge retcon (retroactive continuity, for the non-comics folks) that people bought because they wanted a space opera to be highbrow.
I can see it now - "Fear and First-Posting in Las Slashdot"....
"We can't stop here! This is troll country!"
"As your sysadmin, I advise you to take this mescaline."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A) the number of screens the movie was shown on
That's (at least partially) George Lucas' fault. He wouldn't let theatres without "high-quality" screens play the movie. (I think I read somewhere that he was demanding THX-certified sound systems).
A movie that should have little or nothing to do with the real world.
Episodes 4, 5, and 6 made refernces to WWII - particularly comparing the Dark Side to Nazi Germany (Nazi Storm Troopers, Palpatine as Hitler, etc.).
Also, the first three episodes seem to have some Biblical undertones (Anakin telling his mother that he will come back to "free the slaves" - al la Moses).
So, Star Wars is not totally without reference to the "real world," and Lucas would not have been setting a precedent in the series to make references to 9/11 (and I do not think individual who posted the comment that initiated this thread was implying that he should have done so) - I, however, am glad that he did not.
Coming to Attack of the Clones, as a story about the Republic breaking down, and a teenager trying to become powerful, coming to grips with his failures as a Jedi. It's not based on any book, it's a purely movie idea. Granted that the actors aren't all that great and the script sucked, but Star Wars will still make more money than Spider-Man because kids can carry a lightsaber to school and be cool, but cannot hang from buildings and hope to become Spider-Man.
So now Attack of the Clones is crap because it is only the third-fastest selling movie ever? What a bullshit! The movie is a great and also a money-making monster. Yeah, George Lucas really has dug a hole for himself!
The Columbine Culture Of Geek Media, by Jon Katz.
The media culture of geeks, or, rather the columbine culture of media is the new geek. Columbine, in addition to the media, created a geek culture where new geeks could columbine the culture. The culture, in return, created a geek media, and performed a coup d'etat. Then Columbine, a geek culture, had a new media. Geekdom. Geek. Culture, New, Geek. The columbine culture of geek media provides a new culture for Columbine, different than the geek media culture provided by new geeks. Columbine, columbine. Columbine. Thank you.
Ever get the feeling that Jon Katz is a mad-libs perl script?
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
After about a century of watching movies filmed on 35 mm film at an effective resolution of about 4000x3000, Lucas thinks that after schlepping out to the gigaplex and shelling out $8.50, people are going to watch 1920x1080 and feel satisfied?
Yes, they'll do it, and they probably won't complain, just as most won't complain about dim projection or dirty prints. But will they notice or care about a slight softening of the image? Not consciously perhaps, but subconsciously they will feel that the image looks less real than they have been accustomed to. They'll know something's WRONG, even if they can't say what it is, and in a subtle way they will feel cheated.
Lucas has lost his edge and lost his focus--LITERALLY.
Today's digital technology might be up to the demands of a straight drama or a romantic chick flick, where most of the interest is in the characters and dramatic elements. It is NOT up to the task of delivering immersive, spectacular, widescreen excitement.
It's a darn shame nobody has the courage to try making an action/fantasy/sci-fi picture in 70mm. It will be a decade before the quality of theatre digital approaches 70mm. It will be three or four years before it approaches plain old 35mm--longer, at the present rate of adoption.
Too bad so few of us can still remember what "2001" REALLY looked like on its first run.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
AOTC is definitely one of the best sequels I've ever seen, 'what, it is a sequel?', yeah a sequel, so give it credit for what it is.
You have to ask yourself whether you would rather have a stand alone Starwars-like movie made around the story which would draw in all the kids in the world with it's 'extreme' action or would you rather have a well-rounded and well produced sequel to a wonderful saga?
Episode one was for the kids apparently... we all complained, right? Then Lucas goes and makes a much more mature film (Episode 2) and we all yawn and complain, right? What's up?
I wish he had treated Episode 1 with the same level of seriousness he tried with E2. In the long run which film will you go back and watch again? I for one will be fast forwarding through E1 just to get the story started and then sitting down to enjoy E2 (w/ a few snack breaks around the romance scenes). E3? who knows...
Hopefully I'll be able to revisit the Starwars saga in years to come and get to have a real quality marathon viewing. It will be kind of wierd to jump from E3 to E4 though with the difference in cinema tech being so disparate.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Well, as I pointed out in a different comment here, the sources I usually use state that Spider-Man opened on 3,615 and AOTC opened on 3,161.
Quote: 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).
What gives JonKatz the right to say ANYTHING about overly long, strung out renditions of things that nobody cares about?
JonKatz approaches the life and times of Episode 2: Attack of the Clones in much the same way that Lucas explores the life and times of Darth Vader. He spends way too much time making up garbage and pulling buzzwords fromlate-90's culture. All he needed was a paradigm shift (or did I just miss it?) to use every known buzzword there is. Bingo!
and Post 9/11? COME ON! Geeze, this is a narrative about 2 movies, not the war on terrorism (yet another overused phrase...) Yeesh.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
I only saw a single trailer for AOTC in the last few months. I saw dozens of Spiderman trailers. As far as I can tell, Spiderman was the one that was being promoted and hyped. I thought it was an alright movie, but I liked AOTC better. I'll probably see AOTC again, while I highly doubt I'll see Spiderman again.
Coming into this, I had seen the previous Star Wars movies, but my only knowledge of Spiderman was that he was some guy bitten by a spider, and turned into a freak, so that influenced me I'm sure.
The thesis of your article is a joke. An absoulte fscking joke. You think that American youth just decided to reject the hype around AOTC and "fight the man" or something? Americans are the biggest media sluts on the face of the earth! Why do you think that corporate advertising budgets are what they are? Why are broadcasting companies freaking out over Tivo and Sonicblue? Because they know that their audiences are like friggin sheep that can be herded like the dumb animals they are.
You're trying to imply that the youth of the world are moving away from the "whorish sellouts" like George Lucas!? You know what was whorish? The vomit-inducing final scene of Spiderman... Hanging on the flagpole with the enormous American flag...gotta love the propaganda angle. I'm starting to think that it's becoming mandatory for all Hollywood studios to send "love america" messages in their products.
I'm sure lots of others have already criticized the "post 9/11" drivel, so I won't even waste my time....
sigs are for suckers
actually, as a new yorker i felt rather insulted by spiderman's campy over the top ny/america patriotic scenes.
i have to walk by that place every day on my way to work yet hollywood thinks they can make it all better by showing me a couple of guys from queens yelling off a bridge.
screw hollywood, don't do us any favors.
The numbers I've seen paint just the opposite picture--that Star Wars has surpassed Spider-Man (according to an AP wire story.) Which numbers are correct?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Slashdot needs a filter preventing stories containing the phrase "late mythologist Joseph Campbell" from being posted. This would save a lot of suffering all around.
Is it just me or is this Katz guy a total idiot?
'There is great chaos under heaven, and the situation is excellent.'
Ugh.
Yes, we understand these tags always apply: fud, dupe, typo, slashdotted, topic name
I hereby beg both the crew of /. and all you loyal members and supporters to request a poll be setup here on /. In order to establish whether or not Jon Katz should be barred until further notice from posting on /.
Let the peoplz be heard!
Digit....over and out!
"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt
For a minute there, I was hopeful that somebody had actually made their own independant film through their own initiative, and marketed it over the net without the involvement of any of the big distribution companies.
Then I read on and realised you were talking about how one Hollywood blockbuster had outsold another Hollywood blockbuster. Oh well. Yawn. I am sure Spiderman is a good film.
Kids didn't rebel or choose anything. The huge numbers are a result of Spiderman's huge marketing blitz that dwarfed that of Clones.
Also, people are tenative after their Jar-Jar experience last time.
I don't know about everyone else, but I saw way more advertising for Spider-Man than AotC. Star Wars may have had the hype of all that's behind it, but it also had to win back the fans it lost with Episode 1.
"It may be remarked in passing that success is an ugly thing. Men are deceived by its false resemblences to merit."
I hear a lot about the movie length discrepancy as well as the screen difference you point out. I perused the news papers and counted movie start times for the two movies by screen when possible. The count was the same or even higher for Clones. I haven't seen the longer movie=fewer showings argument justified yet. Around here they open earlier to show Clones to get more times in.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
So yes, Lucas did sell-out. Did he continue his ways in AOTC? I don't know, I haven't seen it yet. I am still debating whether or not to see it at all. I really want to see some good Jedi action though. At least if I wait for it to come out on rental, I can skip the lame crap.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
OK, while I agree that the dialogue was pretty awful and the direction could have been better (though one of the things about digital is the camera is more limited due to the size and cables), what exactly is wrong with a political plot?
It's not really that hard to follow, but it is pretty clever, with several plot twists which may throw you at first but are on the whole well thought out and fairly credible (the JarJar thing's a bit dubious though). If you don't want a decent plot then ignore it, but otherwise don't knock it just because it doesn't drop to the comprehension of the lowest denominator.
These films are about the fall of the Republic - it's going to involve politics and anyone who doesn't know what a republic is, or the basics of how it works wants sending back to school for a few years, especially if they live in one!
I saw in one review that the Phantom Edit had removed some (or all) of the Senate scenes! Talk about missing the point of the film completely.
I, for one, am glad that Star Wars hasn't fallen to the level of being yet another shallow action movie like Spiderman. I'll be buying the AOTC DVD when it comes out but Spiderman will be staying on the shelf with Batman and the rest of it's ilk.
The only mythology in Star Wars is George Lucas thinking he can write and direct.
So first of all, the box office is the be all end all. Spiderman is "massacring" Episode 2 in earning the almighty dollar. (Even if that really was all that mattered, it's way too early to call.) But then he complains about how Lucas has sold out, and he could have kept the franchise's dignity and still made tens of millions of dollars. So which is it Jon?
Vote Quimby.
Maybe it's because I'm in NYC and the national press is headquartered here, but I was amazed at how much was being done not just by the national networks and newsmagazines, but even by the NY Times to puff up SM. The Times not only featured it on the front of every possible section of the paper over several weeks (including such tripe as a profile of the family currently living at SM's fictional address in Queens), but gave Stan Lee Op-Ed space to gloat about how cool he's always been right when the movie opened.
And the press has been cold to Lucas - which might be partly because all the movies since the first one up until now have sucked (the first understood the attractions of classic sci-fi, the rest haven't). Or could it be because Lucas has put out a movie that questions imperial pretensions?
Isn't the audience for SM essentially the same one as supports the boy bands - that other revolution in confectionary taste among the young? Is anyone claiming SM is more than cute, mindless escapism? Nothing wrong with it being that; but hardly anything to celebrate about either, all press to the contrary.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
George Lucas is an out-of-touch-with-the-times idiot.Clearly (you can tell by comparing the movies' grosses!), Anakin Skywalker should have lived in New York and been bitten by a spider. Oh yeah, and it would have been less complicated if he had also fought and defeated Darth Vader at the end of the film.
cygnuhchur
This is off topic, and will possibly be modded-down a bit, but I can't get into this horserace on movies... this is a game for Hollywood politicos...remember them? An article or two back, they were the enemy...
/. scale, they may be near "Bill Gates"-level on the Evilmeter.
Perhaps it because, as an American now living in Europe (where everything comes out 2-4 months later for tax reasons), I'm just not excited to rush out to the latest movie, and so I feel a little like a strange outsider looking in, watching the addicts both loathe and celebrate their pushers in nearly the same breath. Lemme 'splain...
We bitch about the MPAA here. All the time. We complain about the absolute power they seem to wield and their easy access to politicians. I think, on a
But their powerbase is far weaker, and their level of integration is social, not technological. We don't need to use their products to do our jobs, unlike Microsoft (well, most of us). And it only takes a few expensive flops to knock a studio boss out of his chair.
We dislike being dictated to (Pick a discussion on...censorship or MPAA involvement) - told what and when to watch something (hijacking video on Tivo) - and how much right we have to things that we purchase (current discussions on MPAA intervention in technology, dissolution of the Sony precendent and other "analog" issues, all our hardware being ID'd with new circuitry) or how we choose to watch it (Divx on Linux, CDs and movies on PCs,
There are a raft of issue we have with the MPAA, yet we support their products without a second thought, as if our choosing to see "Spiderman" over "Attack of the Clones" makes us smarter or better people.
It doesn't...I believe that it makes us look like gullible and leadable fools in Hollywood's eyes. Rant all we want, we'll just come back and power the movie machine that wants to marginalize our rights. (I'm still an American and vote..and pay taxes!...so I can say that with a straight face).
Which begs the obvious question - Why don't we use the power we have to boycott expensive or popular movies to make our "force" felt?
Why don't we, as a community with considerable reach, target new releases and then, on the opening weekend, don't go. No 117-million dollar weekends. No crowing from that one side of Jack Valenti's face (a little like Two-Face, this man looks to me).
We can still go to the movie--that's no problem. 2...3 weeks later maybe. The gains will be slower, and the film community would feel it...that's for sure. But think of the power... we can "cost" them millions a movie by targeting them deliberately as a form of protest.
Actually, it's the ideal form of protest for them. It's all voluntary commerce. And voluntary revolt.
Let's say some Senator pushes a bill to eliminate standard VCRs for ones with digital coding, an ID system, for example. We should create a protest, target a new film coming out, announce that we'll not attend and then see what happends. Can you imagine the reaction to the next "Matrix" movie opening to a 30-million-dollar weekend?
We do have voice that can be easily heard. We just have to keep our sight clear on the target and push until we get there.
If anyone wants to do this, count on my help for any website...I think it needs discussion an focus before doing, but I think we need to consider SOME kind of constructive reaction to the MPAA.
And frankly, the last thing we need to do is Monday-morning analysis on the weekend tallies...
For that reason alone I'd expect Spiderman to do better in the initial weeks.
Spiderman has earned about $133M more than ATOC. It has also been out 25 days as opposed to ATOC's 12 days. I can't see how that statement makes any sense given the numbers. I doubt ATOC will only do $33M in the next two weeks.
And "Spiderman shows no signs of slowing down"? Then why did it gross $48M the weekend ATOC opened, but only 36M last weekend? Is that not slowing down? Are there even any movies that retain or increase their weekend grosses?
Who really cares which movie grosses the most anyway? ATOC will gross more anyway because people will need to go back 2-3 times just to figure out the plot!
Katz complains about Lucas going overboard on the marketing tie ins for TPM. Did he notice Lucas restrained these tie ins for ATOC?
Well, there's also the fact that opening weekend for Spiderman saw the movie playing on hundreds of screens thousands of times a day here... One 12 screen theatre had ONLY Spiderman, all day from 10:00am.
Actually, that's not a fact. This is a fact: Spiderman opened on around 1600 screens in North America, while Clones opened on around 1500 screens. That's not enough of a difference to explain away the revenues.
Here's another fact: anyone who makes assertions of fact without citing their source probably can't find their own arse with two hands and a flashlight.
Source for above fact: my infinite wisdom.
Also, he's ugly and smells like poop.
I assert ownership of all trademarks and copyrights on this page.
Sssh! You're tempting Katz to write a "Post-Columbine analysis" of Star Wars.
I'm honestly sick and tired of people bagging on AotC. "It's not 'A New Hope'!" "It's not 'Empire Strikes Back'!"..no, it's not..and neither is it supposed to be. AotC is telling a completely different story and I happen to like it. Now don't get me wrong, but episodes 4,5, and 6 were very good, probably my most favorite movies of all time. I find it fascinating to watch the history of my childhood heroes! Yeah, I'll admit that TPM probably wasn't the best movie of all time but it was nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.
/. geeks with how much romance experience? :) Anyhow, think about it..if you're Senator Amidala, you're a representative of an entire planet so everyone has their eyes on you all the time. She's probably under enormous stress and has been since early childhood! Anakin, sheesh..coming to terms with his destiny and calling, learning to use force powers, and dealing with an over-critical mentor..and don't forget that these kids are only around 19! So you're telling me that they're supposed to be all suave and charming lovers, too? I don't know about you, but I sure as heck wouldn't buy that..
While Lucas did commercialize the literal hell out of that movie, it's easy to see that he's learned from his mistake, as the number of adverts on soda cans is way down from last time. For you spiderman fans, let's not forget that every time you turn on the tv you see those idiotic cingular wireless commercials.
People have been bagging all kinds on the acting, but I happen to think that the acting of the characters is right on. Everyone says "Oh, Anakin and Padme look and speak so awkwardly that they seem to want to be somewhere else!" Yeah..ok, and this is coming from
The story is compelling..the action is good..if your attention span is so short that Rambo makes you drift off to sleep then, yeah, the 'details', 'background', and 'story' of the movie might make you not like it..just stop bagging on this movie because it's not like the first 3.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, go into business for themselves.
I saw Spidey, and it wasn't that great. I refuse to see AOTC, because of all the hype and mixed reviews from friends.
I saw THE MATRIX the first day, before all the hype. The theatre was half full and we all cheered and wooped when it finished. The very next day ALL SHOWS were sold out by 6pm. I was pissed, because I wanted to see it again.
HYPE == CRAP.
NO HYPE/BAD PUBLISHED REVIEWS usually means it sucks, but once in a while it's controversal (sp?).
Spidey was a big disappointment to me, or maybe I am just getting old. But remember ExiStenZe?
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
Just a tiny correction. Those 1950's-era TV space operas were broadcasts of the 1930's-era cinema serials. But I do agree with you on your main point. As one of those serials, AoTC (at least the last half) did rock.
I also thought that the bad parts of AOTC (any love scene, any one liner by mcgregor, any scene with 3cpo talking) were an order of magnitude worse than TPM.
Yeah, sucks to have a story involved. There should've just been lots of fights to watch and then we'd go home. Without those scenes there would be practically no development of Anakin and then nothing would make sense (where'd Luke come from?? Why does he turn to the dark side??).
There were also many scenes that were blatant sell-out type scenes that the purist in me sees as a blatant travisty to the universe (yoda, r2 flying, the jedi sacraficing themselves uselessly).
I'll agree with the R2 flying part. That just struck me as being dumb when you consider the original movies. As for Yoda, I don't know about it. He was supposed to be a great warrior. It's nice to see him doing something besides spouting jedi philosophy. Sure, it was a scene that would appeal to many just because it's a little green muppet jumping around and kicking ass with a lightsaber, but I think that those of us that grew up with the original films always wondered about Yoda's fighting skills. Luke was obviously shocked to find out that the great jedi master was such a little goofy looking guy. So were the rest of us. It worked for the movie, but this being a prequel, we want to see the great warrior for ourselves. Finally, on the subject of the jedi sacrificing themselves, I don't think that was their intent. I was fairly sceptical about the way that scene played out anyway. Why did they have hordes of battle-droids waiting right outside the arena doors? The jedi knew there was a droid army, but I don't see how they could have expected a fight like what they ended up with. I think they thought they would be able to take control of the situation pretty quickly, but it didn't work out for them.
Oh yeah... and I loved Spiderman. For the reasons you said, plus Dunst definitely does it for me.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Torg and Riff. Is Riff not his brother's keeper? Is he blinded by science? Will he bear the mark of Cain? And what of Torg's innocence? The net is alive with myth and legends in the making while the media slaves feed the machine. Rage, Rage against the machine, brothers and sisters... and... oh... nurse is here with my meds now.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
IMHO - I thought spiderman was horrible. Yeah the special effects were cool. But I didn't want to see a puppy love story. In fact, I got up and left, as did several other people in the theater.
As per IMDB.com:
Spiderman: 3615 screens
StarWars: 3161 screens
Runtimes:
Spiderman: 121 min.
StarWars: 142 min.
Fewer screens showing a longer movie. Somebody with more time on their hands will have to do the math.
Personally, I went into SW with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. Outstanding CGI...in most cases, the generated characters were more interesting than the live actors. Also, I was surprised at the number of teenage girls attending...must have something to do with that annoying Hayden Christensen.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
...is cause Bruce Campbell is in it. ;-)
Seriously, I enjoyed Spider-Man more than Episode II because the former was a better movie as a whole. I thought Spider-Man was a good movie throughout, while Attack of the Clones had a lot of exposition and didn't kick into gear until the last 45 minutes or so.
Still, I wish that insiders would stop making a big deal about money taken in and paid more attention to tickets sold. With ticket prices increasing, we're going to keep getting record-breaking movies every year or two simply from inflation.
I bet the bridge scene was done (or conceived at least) prior to the 11th of September. That scene is so characteristic of New Yorkers that it works, then and now. It was true two years ago it will be true two years from now.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
First both are heavily religous movies. The new age buddhist in Clones v.s. more traditional Christianity (Aunt Mae says the our father, they celebrate thanksgiving and there is a problem saying grace).
Peter Parker is a comic character. He makes a lot of mistakes trying to become the superhero, and we laugh with him when things don't work out. That is someone everyone can relate to. The universe doesn't depend on him, so he really has choices.
Luke and Anakin Skywalker can't look stupid. They do stupid things while doing something heroic, but there is no "oops", and they always end up working out. The silly stupid is reserved for Jar Jar, or C3PO.
Another difference is the mentor - ObiWan wants Luke to become like him, but Peter's Uncle can't help him with his spider powers, only his moral makeup.
And in Spiderman, there are a lot of moral trade-offs (he could have got the girl, but I won't spoil it). He could explain or expose his secret and it would fix things short term, but he doesn't. He doesn't expose the Green Goblin's identity because it would hurt someone else, though he will be blamed. There are heavy costs to do the right thing in Spider-Man. Every doesn't live happily ever after, but they retain their honor.
There is some of this in StarWars, but things tend to work out a lot better against heavier odds. Like at the end of Return of the Jedi, we see Luke's father with the good Jedi. Han Solo gets Leah - apparently there are no noblesse oblige and they can go away to a garden planet and not worry about the messy politics (I think about the US revolution or civil war - building and/or rebuilding a country isn't easy).
Star Wars is great myth, in the sense of a grand opera like the Ring Cycle. Bigger than life with cleaner endings and contrasts.
Spiderman fits within life.
George Lucas is working on Spider-Man Episode I as we speak. Here's some select quotes:
"Meesa been bitten by a spider!"
"Meesa spidey-sense all tingly! Oh no, issa bombad villain! Meesa got to go find a phone booth!"
***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.
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.
Wow, finally a Katz article I like, read from start to finish without loudly remarking to the computer screen and one that I can agree with in many respects.
I would simply add that part of Lucas's problem is that the supposed target audience shifted from movie to movie. How cool would "Return of the Jedi" have been if instead of Ewoks we had Wookies as originally planned.
Episode 1 was just completely not aimed at me. I can't believe it made as much money as it did.
Episode 2 however was much more enjoyable. Luckily the pain of having to watch Jar-Jar Binks was kept to a discrete miniumum. The story was better and of course seeing Yoda do battle was both hilarious and exactly what I wanted to see in a matinee.
There is a simpler explination for Spider-Man kicking AoTC's butt: AoTC is a piece of garbage. Lucas has shot himself in both feet with the last two movies and it is the strong power of denial that keeps the diehard fans from realizing this.
With "Menace" and "Clones" Lucas has exposed himself as the untalented control freak that he really is.
I, for one, have washed my hands of him.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Maybe it's just me, but it drives me crazy when the success of a movie is measured by the amount of sales in dollars. I don't know what it's like in the rest of the world, but up here in the Great White North (ie. Canada) movie ticket prices have soared to the $13 (CAN) range. That is about triple what I payed when I was a kid (and I ain't THAT old). I guess the hype would be lost if they reported actual "bums in seats".
I kid you not. Check out the "Rename 'The Two Towers' to Something Less Offensive Petition". I like the note from the webmaster of petitiononline.com basically stating that the guys who created the petition are idiots. And check out the "View Current Signatures" section for extra chuckles.
GMD
watch this
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].
John, John, John.....
By all accounts, The original Star Wars was even fairly low grade sci-fi, but it struck a chord with kids at the time, and no wonder, it had the outerspace equivalents of everything kids (especially young boys) like, it had knights, sword, gunfights, dogfights, spaceships and monsters, elements of westerns, war movies, airplane fights and army battles. In reality, looking back at them today and even at the stories, they are hackneyed. Why do we love them still? Because our visions of the originals are clouded by nostalgia. Because we remember those times with fondness, so we go to see them. Its not wonder the kinds are not the big consumers of Star Wars, its not that good, and kids today have grown to expect better. We have nostalgia to make us want to see them, because we remember how great the orginal's special effects were at the time.
Kids today, however, have no nostalgia to fall back on. For them, its purely a matter of story and special effects, both or which are okay in AOTC, but nothign spectacular.
The real surprise is not that Spiderman beat Star Wars, the real surprise is that Star Wars is actually anywhere even close to holding its own, and this would not have been true in years past. It just so happens that the traditional mold of children and teenagers being the ones with the disposable income and driving movie sales is skewed. Gen X is large, and actually has a fairly large percentage of disposable income, more than people in theer demographic group in the past had.
The reason spiderman is kicking Star Wars but? simple, the special effects are good, the story is good. AOTC does nto measure up, but is still fairly decent. The only thing keeping it alive at all is the nostalgia factor, remove that, and Star Wars might as well be Howard the Duck
I reject your reality
Mythology, as you so aptly point out, needs a hero to work. Lucas's problems with the prequels is the fact that they are laying the groundwork for that hero story. It is about the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. How exactly do you expect the story to be told?
Certainly George is a media whore and sells off the franchise, but he's reigned in the beast this time around after seeing shelves full of Jar Jar merchandise. But this is nothing new. Star Wars did similar sales in toys and by the time Jedi came around, we had tie ins galor. Spider-Man is NOT exempt from this, just take a look around and you see the red and blue leotard everywhere!
There are plenty of hero's to see in this movie, and we get a glimpse of when Jedi were in charge (if not starting to fall apart with pride). The prequels are about the fall of a promising hero set to the backdrop of political intrigue and war caused by the sith so they could overwhelm the galaxy. If I wanted to see someone wearing the American Flag or making reference to terrorists, I'd go see Spidey again. I see this as sort of a cheap, though probably heartfelt, string-pulling on Rami's part.
Apart from Jar Jar - Hell, the whole Gungan race - the first movie was kinda slow, but still hella cool to be back. And Lucas did go a little heavy on the nostalgia in the second flick, but it totally redeemed the franchise. It has everything one could want. Intrigue, conspiracies, war, Jedi battles, spaceship combat, Force powers, clones, droids and fairly relentless action. All set to a very familiar and amazingly rendered fantasy world. The love scenes could have been less flat, but actors only have so much to work with, and I think Lucas has always wanted his world to be platonic. It's not about Love - it's the Action. When was the last time you read Tolkein and thought "Where is the love story?"
Suffice it to say that comparing movies is pretty silly. Comparing Spider-Man to Star Wars: AOTC, is like comparing X-Men to The Matrix. What exactly is the point? Evaluate Star Wars on it's face... maybe against the other movies - which most felt it topped - but not against other movies.
Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
I think a significant amount of Spiderman's success is due to timing. I was really the first 'summer' film to come out. People have been 'waiting' for a 'feel good' action movie and Spiderman delivered. Thus a decent movie that comes out before any 'real', Scorpion King doesn't count, competition gets a good head start.
Good point. In my other comment I mention, the person stated '3,800 or so screens', which matched Memorial Day numbers of 3,876 theatres that I had read.
Katz, I find your lack of faith disturbing.....
also, when he says drubbing, what does he mean? 115 Million in four days ain't bad, if you ask me...
Katz, your beef is not with Lucas raking the cash from the merchandizing efforts -- it is with the american society which greedilly sucks this tripe up voluntarilly. Lucas is merely a successfull capitalist.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
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...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
The gist of the article is that the two new Star Wars movies are missing any sort of Han Solo character.
:)
Well, this is true, but some of us are content with Natalie Portman in his place.
In the new movies, only robots get shot.
I guess all those dead Jedi in Attack of the Clones don't count? Episodes One and Two are no less violent than Episodes Three, Four, and Five.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
This is starting to get funny. I'll do like Scott Adams, and create some statistics of my own.
According to a recent study from some very important scientists (which are important, but not enough to make me remember their names), 80% of all statitics are faked (including this one).
Also, on that same study, the number for the opening of these movies are slightly different. SpiderMan opened on exactly 13 theaters, on the same time, at a given sample time point. A different number shows up for AOTC. It opened on exactly 5 theaters, on a single, but different, time point.
Anyone cares to provide with any other statisticaly irrelevant data ?
:-)
morcego
Actually, mentioning 9/11 is quite relevant when discussing Spider-Man...one of the key scenes in the movie involving the twin towers was removed.
that even if star wars gets drubbed (I use this term in reference, not in correctness) there will still be an episode 3 in couple of years, and it will still make enough money to cover it's bills...thus saying it was a decent enough investment
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.
Actually -- as much as I hated JarJar in Episode I, I think Lucas made perfect use of him in this movie. Did you notice that JarJar is the idiot senator who is responsible for the downfall of the republic?
"Meesa thinks evil emperor should havva mergency power until he wants to give it back!"
Yes, we do care, as a matter of fact. AotC was a huge success. Obviously a lot of people did care (enough to pay for expensive tickets)
At a basketball game it does matter who wins by just one point. The "loser" who played nearly as well is still the "loser". Likewise for most sporting events, which are artifical contests. Fortunately, that fiction doesn't apply to most real world success (despite the flare it might add to otherwise boring journalism and reporting)
AotC taking in slightly less revenue that Spidey doesn't somehow mean that AotC is a "loser" and Spidey is a "winner". They're both an amazing success. In fact, they're so close that fans endlessly argue about the number of opening screens and other factors (much like watching those cameras to see if the ref made a fair call... over just one point to decide the game!)
Of course, if you really, really want to believe in something... say that Lucas is evil for hype/merchandizing, far-flung storytelling, and whatnot, then it's a battle with a winner and a loser. No matter how close the contest, no matter how well AotC did, if it's just a bit below your favorite then Lucas "lost" and "should learn his lesson".
This latest installment of Katz babble reminds me of when I was very young and the Apple ][ was clearly superior to the C-64. Then again, Apple's still in business today, so maybe it was. Kinda makes me wonder how many Spidey sequals they will make and if Lucas will change his mind and create Episodes 7, 8 and 9 ??
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
(I think I read somewhere that he was demanding THX-certified sound systems) I don't know about AOTC, but that certaly was the case for Episode 1.
morcego
So true. When you have bad acting along with a script that sounds like it was written by a 12 year old girl...
the best movie of all time is....
Gone With the Wind! made 198.0 million, adjusted to just over 1 billion for inflation, and seen on damn fewer screens than AOTC or Spiderman.
BTW, Titanic only makes it to number 5 on this list.
It makes sense. In their books Generations and The 4th Turning, historians Strauss and Howe say that each generational archetype has its own version of the hero myth, so what speaks to one generation will not speak to the next.
Take the movies "Bugs" and "Antz" as examples. The two movies have some superficial similarities, but "Antz" tells the boomer generation story of lone rebels fighting against an opressive regime, while "Bugs" tells the millennial generation story of a society banding together to fight invading evil. There are good guys and bad guys in both stories, but they are still very different.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
"Peter Parker has a different view, and so do the millions of kids making his movie a smash."
"The message to kids especially was follow the Force, but rake in the cash."
This guys is crazy. Certifiable.
He belives both Peter Parker a.k.a. Spiderman and the Force are real.
Lock this guy up now...
I don't understand why this means anything. A couple million american kids go to see a movie (getting shafted at $10/ticket, no doubt!) and we've got the second coming, or at least, the proletariat revolution? Now, if they were building lightsabers and burning down theatres, then I'd imagine you'd might have a point. But this just sounds like sociopolitical bullshit (and I should know, I study politics and read stuff like this every day).
As far as dollars go, Spider-Man had twice the hype that AOTC did.
I did enjoy spiderman a bit more.
AotC is a lot better than the first episode,
very little jar-jar, and I got to see the senator
nipples poking through her outfit.
The feeling I get is that the first films (4,5,6)
were put together as a creative artform, and
Episode 1 and 2 are all about retirement for
Lucas.
Jon, maybe you haven't noticed that 1) Spider-Man has been around much longer than Star Wars, and 2) plenty of people who grew up with the original Star Wars, such as myself, also preferred the Spidey flick. It has nothing to do with some kind of mystical generational differences, it's simply the later stuff you said - that Lucas' stuff has become pompous crap, while Spider Man had a story and a heart, along with some nifty fun.
As many people have pointed out
1)AoTC opened on fewer screens and runs longer. So, it could not have POSSIBLY grossed as much in it's first weekend. For what it's worth, both films were sold out in the Hudson Valley in New York State on the first weekend.
2)How many seats are sold to repeat viewers? I ask this because it is only in a repeat viewing that movie quality can count. Otherwise you are seeing it cold.
3)Also, vis a vis quality, this is the FIFTH Star Wars movie. Yes, maybe it could be better, but I doubt Spider-Man has the legs to go for a fifth or sixth incarnation. Look at how bad the Superman and Batman series became after a while.
4)This is a weak economy. People might not have the bucks it takes to go see EVERY movie they want EVERY time they want.
5)Where is the most significant stat? I want to see total tickets sold divided by number of showings. For all i know AoTC could have outgrossed spidey in two days if it had been on more screens.
6) Lucas has a much bigger legacy to support. What came before in the Spider-Man legacy? Comic books? A newspaper comic strip? Animated television series? A crappy live action TV series? I was frankly MUCH more eager to see what a big budget Spidey flick had to offer to that myth. With Star Wars we're lucky that we got a movie that surpassed Ep1 and Ep6 in quality.
7)My little Spider-Man rant here....the combat looked terrible! The fistfights were poorly choreographed, and the best action in the movie was all CG. Willem DaFoe does turn in a great performance though.
SIGH! In closing, can we please stop all the fussin' and a-feudin'? I think it'll be really funny if MIB2 or, even a bigger underdog, if Star Trek X kicks both their asses.
That has to be the biggest load of crap I have ever read on Slashdot, or possibly anywhere. I have never read such an overly cerebral explanation for why one crap movie does better than another crap movie. I'm not sure what planet this man lives on, but here I'm pretty sure that this "generation coup d'etat" was not evidence of masses of "rebellious youth" balking at mega-hype. If anything, it is totally the opposite. If you ask me it is evidence of a generation absurdly addicted to blindly following what the marketing droids beam out from every corner of our existence.
I'm not sure where this assertion that Spiderman was less hyped than Star Wars came from, but if this guy would just got to damn grociery store he would see it is totally false. I'm sorry, but I just cannot consider a movie whose main character's image has been used not just as a cereal box toy but actual cereal, to be less hyped than Star Wars. There are even Spiderman Pop-Tarts. What the hell is that? No, Spiderman's excellent performance owes itself to the insane and omnipresent marketing and franchise it garnered. For the past six months, Spiderman has been an inescapable image.
Then there is this issue of people avoiding Star Wars because it is too complex, having outgrown it's audience. In some ways, I can agree with this, but I cannot believe that this man believes that's actually a good thing. People don't want to see thoughtful movies anymore. People only want to see simplistic movies with linear, single-threaded plots. God forbid causing someone to actually think for a minute. Jesus!
Spiderman outperformed Star Wars because it is a typical summer action movie. It is full of the "beautiful" people. It is loaded with action. It has a simple, mind-numbing, predictable plot. Star Wars is a serial epic, presenting a complex plot that spans multiple movies. And let's not forget that Star Wars has developed a bit of geek stigma, which beyond the Slashdot world is generally looked upon grimmly. What kind of guy is going to take his braindead date to see a Star Wars flick? She would no doubt be far too confused to put out at the end of the night.
No no, this commentary gives far to much credit to the driving cultural motivations in our society. People are dumb, and getting dumber by the day as they consume more and more brain candy like Spiderman.
Its the loss of the universe to the dark side. The beginning of the series whows the slide down the scree and the plunge into the volcano.
No amount of cinematographic wizardry is going to help movie #3 the end of which is already known since it segues into #4. It will have real crap as grosses.
That doesn't mean it won't be made or that it shouldn't be made. Just that it will take at least another generation before the entire series can be viewed (from 1 to 9) without the angst and agita that #3 will create.
By the way, nobody seems to remember that the series was orogonally conceived and written about the life of the 'droids, not about the evanescent existence of the "flesh" beings.
The saga is older and tired and the audiences are older and tired too.
The "Geek Factor" is dying as surely as the original audience is losing its hair.
I just wish that the studios would stop milking the paltry media history of the late Boomers and Gen X'ers.
Who needs anything new? Rerun "The Philadelphia Story" All the actors are dead by now.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
A coup d'etat, huh? Is that anything like a Caddie Coup D'eville? That's what the generation that grew up with Star Wars'll be drivin' soon. Peerin' through the steerin' wheel with their cataract-clouded eyes viewin' the hood of the Caddie, unless they have to settle for sumthin' downscale like a Buick. Yeah, things change. Big deal.
P.S. I really like your writing, Jon. But how about trying to find some relevant fodder in something less trivial than a couple of fscking movies - and ones no-one will remember in a couple decades' time at that? Riffing on dumb movies is a waste of your talent.
That is all.
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
We've but given up hope in ever seeing a JonKatz review of Star-Wars 2.0...
You've got to be kidding. 'Spider-man' was way too predictable, its villain far too comic-bookish to be taken seriously (then again, considering the story's origins, that may not be a surprise), and rushed character development at best.
If you want to know what good story-telling is really like, go see 'Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.' Far from being another talking-animal flick, the producers darn near got the entire story out with nothing more than facial expressions, body language, impressive music from Bryan Adams, and some occasional narration.
In fact, my wife used to raise horses. She says that Dreamworks did a heck of a good job with their homework on how horses used to be captured and 'broken' to the saddle. If nothing else, Dreamworks probably deserve some brownie points for good research.
Keep the peace(es).
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Padme's line "Ani Ani, are you okay?" in the romance-in-the-Tellitubbie-land scences got a big laugh out of me. Maybe that sequence was an intentional joke for us medical care professionals, and the writers really are geniuses.
First off, Katz, you are annoying as always. As usual you get caught up in the depth of your own arguments. I don't think that you need Joseph Campbell to explain this one but his name certainly looks good in the footnotes. I'm sure your old English teachers think you're cool.
An entire generation of folks grew up on Star Wars. None of us are kids anymore. This core fan group is now 30-40 years old. Lucas should be targetting his original fans with these prequels. It doesn't make sense to try to drag children into a storyline that is already 25 years old and spans 4 movies.
The problem is that Lucas and everyone backing him expects a blockbuster out of every new Star Wars movie. To do this he has to try to make a movie of wide appeal. This means expanding the audience to include the 8 year olds of today. Unfortunately it is difficult to make a movie that extends a storyline of 4 previous movies and also appeals to people who know little about it. Plot elements such as Jar Jar only alienate his core audience and seem to have missed the mark with younger viewers.
Take a look at David Brin's site. He has a lot of thoughts about Star Wars (much better than the Katz tripe). These are old comments after Episode I disappointed so many of us. Most importantly I think that he has a lot of suggestions that would do a lot to enhance these prequels.
Brin Article
Marvel comics has been marketing themselves to 12 year old boys for ohh .. some 50 odd years.
.. ask any kid if he has heard of a comic book hero .. and EVERYONE who has ever read one will be able to say either 'Spider-man' 'Super-man' or 'Bat-man'. (or if your from the 70's-80's .. 'x-man' :P)
..
.. it was a fringe audiance in the first place .. sci-fi geeks.
.. then it became a HUGE thing .. but skip 10 years forward in the future .. these kids missed the first one .. and everyone hitting empire was 10 years older .. so it never hit their generation (cept for the hardcore or whatever) but market penetration skipped years of folks.
.. and targeting the young kids again .. but hey .. they mystic of the first movies totally passed them by.
.. but she make a yoda/force joke the other day .. and she said that out of a class of 40 (yeah .. no kidding) only 2 kids even showed recognition.
.. of COURSE spider-man made more . .. 50 years of Stan-Lee pushing comics to 12 year old kids.
.. Marvel kept pushing comics at them.
.. doesn't SELL his franchise .. he just expects the momentum to carry on.
.. lucas is a FILM director .. arty .. likes to do differnt stuff .. Stan-Lee .. is a comic book publisher .. makes $$ of each book sold.]
.. but he doesnt exacly have to depend on monthly sales of starwars to keep him going .. where as comic books are a pretty brutal business.
.. in a nutshell .. Marvel has been SELLING spiderman for years .. compared to that .. Starwars was just a pickup line at some party in the 70's.
non stop
Now . compare that to some 25 years of starwars marketing
not REALLY 25 years mind you
SURE . if you were borne in the late 60's early 70's
Now Starwars is back
My wife teaches middle school, everyone in all her classes knows who spider-man is
so
its more in the main-stream
as long as kids kept turning 12
Lucas on the other hand
[and honestly . its apples and oranges
not to say lucas isnt in it for the $$
so
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
He didn't get the girl
I beg to differ.
In the end, Mary-Jane realized that she loved Parker but he turned her down because it didn't want to put her in danger again.
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.
...Or, why Katz is wrong.
In 1997, Titantic grossed over $600 million. The second place movie was Men in Black, Which did less then half that.
Both were highly hyped, big budget films. Titantic was a simple love story with a little adventure thrown in, while Men in Black was mostly eye candy with special effects and quite a few tie ins (including a cartoon series).
Yet, 5 years later, which one would you rather see? The easy answer would be neither, but I for one remember Men in Black far more fondly then Titantic.
Of course, you could say that Titantic hit a nerve amoung young woman that had'nt been touched by major movie studios in a long time, whic accounted for it's good showing at the box office. . . and you'd be right. You can say a lot of things, but to suggest that because it made so much money it represented a dynamic shift in the Western world's understanding of mythology is just silly.
---
The Internet is generally stupid
No Jon. This movie is out before 9/11. It's only May. Seriously, what in the fuck does 9/11 have to do with this movie? You are so into globalization yet you fail to see that this movie plays in countries other than America. So why do you feel it has to have pictures of New York in it or it has to be filmed no more than 50 yards distance of the WTC site? Hell, I live in NC. I haven't been affected by 9/11/01 at all (except for people's annoying ass flag waving.. which the fad has faded greatly now). I mean, the disaster was great entertainment for a day, but you can only watch jets fly into huge buildings so long before it gets old. Please stop using the hype of Nine-Eleven(TM) to push your trash that your are trying to pass up as a real movie article/comparison. In other words: NO ONE GIVES A DAMN ANYMORE. The only ones still giving a damn are people who actually knew someone who died or the media (i.e. your dumbass) who are hyping things by association.
Why didn't you use Columbine to pump up this trash? I mean, they use GODDAMN LIGHTSABERS AND LASERS in Starwars! What do 9/11 terrorists use? Friggen box cutters. How boring. Shotguns and explosives are way more interesting and almost-in-a-JonKatz-logic-type-way related to Starwars.
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Doesn't anyone think it interesting that in its second week, Star Wars beat Spider Man in its fourth week?
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
Just because something is free does not mean you have to take it.
For the love of Bob. When is this absolutely stupid Star Wars bashing session going to end? It's a fun movie. So what if it isn't the highest grossing film of the summer? So what if it falls short of the $430 million US mark (approx what TPM made)? These folks need to stop taking themselves so seriously and *gasp* enoy life. There have been countless movies made that are better than the whole Star Wars franchise. There have also been countless movies made that are better than Spider Man. Back away from the computer screen, open your eyes and realize some things are just for fun.
Knightfall
This time Katz is right. Star Wars, Attack of the Clones kind of sucks. Why? I think it's because he sold his soul out to Hollywood again and made a crappy movie that appeals to some non-existent demographic that Hollywood was trying to appeal to.
I am more than a little disappointed in the failure of these last two episodes of Star Wars in the manner in which they have gone utterly cheesy.
It wasn't in the nature of Star Wars originally to have the heroine running around with frozen nipples and flashing skin to try and sell to the crown of American Pie. Similarly, the love affair may have relevance, but they could have shortened all the scenes considerably. Afterall, I don't think it helped Titanic that everyone was knocking boots all through the cargo holds and it certainly didn't help here.
Sorry Lucas, but you've really sold out and have lost the edge that you once had. Whatever happened to your eye of the tiger?
Not to mention all of the dead pilots in Phantom Menace, from the ship Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan arrive on, to the Naboo starfighter pilots who die either getting to their ships, or die in flight.
First, let me say, I'm not a kid. I'm 21. Which is precisely why I'm not going to now -- nor ever -- see this stupid Spiderman film. Even when I was a kid, I didn't like Spiderman comics or TV-series.
Spiderman is, imo, from what I've seen, a purely for kids movie. Unlike the original Star Wars IV - VI, which could be enjoyed by kids who just wanted a fun movie, and which was serious enough that adults wouldn't feel like idiots watching it. There are some things which are just too stupid, too childish, for an adult to even watch by him or herself. Spiderman is one of those things. Congratulations to the creators of Spiderman for making a movie targetted to children which made them an awful awful lotta money. I'm sure that if they'd released a 3D animated movie of Transformers it'd do just as well. Big deal.
What really gets me is that some people are actually trying to say this is "a classic", or "a great movie". As of simply because its sold a lot, it deserves to be compared with great movies such as the original Star Wars series, Jurassic Park, Jaws, Titanic, and so on and so forth. Lets get one thing straight: "Spidey" isn't in that class of movies. There's nothing brilliant about it, as there was in Jaws. There's no revolution in special effects, as was done in Jurassic Park.
So, please, people lets not do real movies a disservice by saying Spiderman is anything all that great. It's a for-kids movie that sold alot. Big deal.
On the other hand, on to Star Wars. Whereas Spidey can't be classified as a great movie because it simply lacks the substance or revolutionary elements, these new Star Wars movies can't be classified as great because they're targetted specifically at Star-Wars nerds. Outside of Star-Wars nerds, no one's really interested in Darth Vaders' child-hood, ok? I happen to really like Star Wars, but I'm still not interested in Anakin Skywalker. I'll be more than interested to see how the evil Emperor turns him into Darth Vader in Ep 3., but that's yet to come. Hopefully, Lucas won't screw up Darth Vader, give him some dumb voice, make him the wrong height, or some nonsense like that.
The simple fact is, as is said earlier, Lucas tries to take it too serious. That would be OK, if we could actually believe it should be serious. With the original Star Wars, you could take it as just fun, but it was also dead serious; Darth Vader was dead serious. But the new Star Wars eps, with Darth Maul? Come on, that guy looked like some poor rip off of a painting of a demon. Try to be a little more creative than red makeup and horns, Lucas. Gee, red make-up and horns? That might be original if not for the THOUSANDS of Christian zealots who've already used that image as the anti-christ for their religion.
Part of it isn't Lucas' fault. I mean, no matter what he does, no Darth Sith he can come up with is going to in any way be able to hold a candle to Darth Vader. But he could've done better than Darth Maul. Even the name was lame.
And another thing, despite MORE THAN A DECADE of special effects but Jaws 2, 3, 4? All pathetic jokes. Jurassic Park 1, great in every way. Jurassic Park 2 was a fun action film, not too much plot other than hunters v. tree-huggers...but still really fun to watch. Jurassic Park 3? Boring. Plot in it was lame, action was lame; as I've said on epinions.com, Jurassic Park 3 tried to be everything that Jurassic Park 1 was, and failed in every possible conceivable way.
I really see parallels between Jurassic Park 3 and Jaws 3/4 and Star Wars I/II. Just a lame money-grab, nothing new to add to the saga. The standard for doing a sequel should be in light of the legacy: does the sequel enhance or diminish the legacy? I think that these new Star Wars I/II movies do nothing to enhance the Star Wars legacy, and in fact diminish it by diluting the real Star Wars movies (IV, V, and VI) with money-grabbing rubbish.
If your a real Star Wars fan, and you really want to see Star Wars, then pop in your IV, V, and VI tapes. You get to watch those for free, and you won't be left with the bad taste in your mouth.
Star Wars III is My Last Hope for Lucas to redeem himself. Hopefully, when Lucas can have a Star Wars movie based around turning Anakin Skywalker into the half-machine Darth Vader, that will be something worth seeing.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
From "Why the Force is Still With Us", an article in the January 6th edition of the New Yorker by John Seabrook: Harrison Ford told me that Lucas had only two directions for the actors in "Star Wars"; he replayed them for me over huevos rancheros on the trerrace at the Bel Air Hotel one Saturday morning, using his George-as-director voice-nasal, high, kind of whiny. The two directions were "O.K., same thing, only better," and "Faster, more intense." Ford said, "That was it: 'O.K, same thing, only better.' 'Faster, more intense.'"
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
Okay, I can't find it right now, but various news sources reported that Spider-Man cost about twice as much to make as Attack of the Clones. PLUS, the studio spent a VERY large amount on marketing Spider-Man, with very little spent on Star Wars. I don't know about you, but I didn't see a single TV ad for Attack of the Clones, while I saw plenty for Spider-Man. And, as has been shown time and time again, marketing alone can cause large initial grosses, even for horrible movies. My estimate is that in a month, Star Wars will still be earning $50m a week, and Spider-Man will be down to $10m. In the long-haul, SW will crush Spider-Man. Spider-Man will be out of first-run theaters within two months, whereas Star Wars will be in first-run (admittedly, it will be in theater 10 of a 10-screen multiplex...) until it hits video.
I had no desire to see Spider-Man, but lots of my friends did. None of them plans on going to see it again in the theaters. While I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, I did see it in the theater (about a week after release,) and will probably go see it again, as will most of the people I know. (Including my sister, who only goes to two movies a year in theaters; and my mom, whose last theater trip before Episode 2 was for Jurrasic Park 1. And she's only seen the original trilogy maybe 3 times, and didn't even like Episode 1!!!)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
... you didn't like the movie.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
Well I'd love a good story, but as Lucas is incapable of making any decent story, I'd rather not have one, and just have pretty fights.
As for Yoda:
Mace Windu is supposed to be the great fighter. Yoda is supposed to be the wiser, more thoughtful jedi. IMO Yoda is more like the emperor. "We don't need no steenking lightsabers." Just some subtle power. Maybe a wave of the hand, and people die. He doesn't fight because he does not need to. Nobody fucks with him because they know he knows bad foo.
9/11 reference in AOTC? Look at how a people will submit to a leader in times of crisis. If you consider the plot of how Palpatine was granted emergency powers in reaction to the separatist movement to assemble an army of the republic. This significant turn of events has echoes throughout our history as well. Remember when Bush wanted some similar emergency powers after 9/11? Military tribunals? All for the love of the empire--er, republic--er, nation.
AOTC has a fantastic way of presenting a story that is not black and white, which is an excellent parallel to our own world. Can you see the ties? Trade federation, are they good, bad, greedy, or just pawns? Separatists, are they doing the right thing by getting out of the galactic government, or also pawns? Anakin, yes he is bound to a honorable organization, but took a personal vendetta against unsuspecting savages, is that bad or is he justified? It's so easy to love the orginal three Star Wars films because you knew who to cheer for, but it gets a lot more complex this time around.
And as for AOTC being the loser because of box office numbers: I truly, deeply, think Katz is a hypocrite.
--
hecubas
Hecubas
(Check out Daily Variety http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=b_o_weeken d&dept=Film
for details.)
I *used* to agree with Katz on many of his movie analyses. Not so with this one. His basic thesis is as follows:
"Simpler movies are better movies."
And he's not just talking about "better" as in "makes more money." What's this crap about Joseph Campbell and the simple hero myth? If I hear that overblown windbag quoted one more time, I think I'm going to puke. He's not the only mythologist out there, but he sure gets quoted like he is.
I appreciated that complexities of the latest Star Wars movie. There were many different factions, all trying for various goals (some hidden and some obvious). And the members of each faction weren't always ACTUALLY working for that faction.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Spiderman. But it wasn't better than Star Wars because the story was less complex. It was better than Star Wars because it was better written, better acted, and better edited. Don't confuse simplicity with quality.
4-star general in a one-man army.
Coming soon:
Spiderman Returns: Starring George Clooney!
Star Wars rules!
What a laff! Does anyone REALLY think Lucas went to Campbell BEFORE the films? NOT! Star wars owed way more to the old westerns (family killed, son becomes famous gunslinger - I mean Jedi- for revenge) than to Joseph Campbell. I guess most Slashdot readers don't remember a litle show called the Lone Ranger? This "mythology" garbage is just Lucas pasting a professorial veneer on a purely commercial project in order to look smart. campbell signed on for the cash.
Vote Quimby!
Dude, you got Claire Danes with crazy NHO's in the rain. What more could you ask of a movie like Spiderman? All you get in AOTC is Natalie Portman's bare midriff. Which one has more spank potential?
The real lesson is... ...avoid pomposity, self-indulgence and too much self-reference
pot. kettle. black.
He really is an idiot.
I remember as a kid on the playground starwars was _ALL_ that was played it was cool. now it has trancended cool and formed itself into nerdy obsession.
With only a little bit of Unix knowledge, you can write Katz articles too!
bash% lynx -dump http://slashdot.org/some_old_katz_article.pl | sed -e "s/post-Columbine/post-9\/11/g" >today\'s_article.txt
Ta-da!
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.
I dunno. In AoTC, I saw a lot of Jedi drop to the ground.
"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
More importantly, religion isn't religion to some of us.
You're just mad because when playing Star Wars as a kid they always made you be Luke, and not Han.
Sounds more like Moonwalker and smooth criminal. I doubt the delivery was the same, though. I also doubt there was a fight in a billiard parlor between gangsters with flapper girls dancing about.
Lowmag.net
For TPM, you could buy Bantha-flavored Booger Candy if you could buy a t-shirt.
pronoblem
better acted. I found it really painful to watch the CGIs out-act the wetware; that kid who played Anakin had maybe one 15-second scene where he really did a decent job of acting (the reunion-with-Mom scene), vs. many where he was just not credible (the whining-to-Padme scene was simply awful). The CGI was fantastic, but I really think Lucas did much better when he was resource-limited and had to rely on archaic things like an interesting plot and good dialog. Show me the character in AOTC who is nearly as good as Harrison Ford in the original SW (not the most versatile actor in the world, but he fit in that role really well). There's *nothing* in AOTC that compares with some of the dialog in SW for wit and aliveness.
To some degree, AOTC is handicapped by being a "prequel" and having little real suspense; we know all the basics of the plot ahead of time. The next movie will be even worse, 'cause the course of its plot will be even more tightly restricted and suspenseless, and these two movies have to end on a downer anyway to fit the story sequence. However, even with these limitations, Lucas really hasn't done a great job.
On the other hand, the starship drive flames were a really cool special effect...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
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.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
I thought AOTC was by far a better movie than Spider-man, for all the reasons Jonkatz mentioned as negatives. AOTC gave us story, it gave us insight into history and genealogy and developed what is one of the most multi-faceted stories to grace the silver screen.
I am a huge Spider-man fan, and thoroughly enjoyed the movie; but make no mistake: it was a fun summer movie. AOTC was a revelation of a deep story.
Fun summer movies are fun, but simplicity doesn't necessarily make the best movie. I thought AOTC was well-acted, well-directed and very appropriate. It had a story to tell, filling in the details between the 2-hour video game that was Episode 1 and the two-hour masterpiece that was Episode 4. And I thought it did so admirably.
Spider-man, while a fantastic movie in its own right, seems to me more of a promise of masterpieces to come.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
That is besides the fact that:
Let's face it: Harrison Ford was the only decent actor to play a major role in the first trilogy. With all due respect to Sir Alec Guiness, his screen appearance does not really span all of the first three movies. The rest of the cast in the first episodes are hardly worth mentioning.
And I agree. The attempt at cleansing Han Solo in the "remaster" was disgusting. Not just the scene with the shot. The scene where he was trying to explain himself to Jabba. Shudder... Yuk... In the original version he was doing everything he could not to explain himself and not to cough up.
Actually, that Han Solo did not need to explain himself. He shot first, provided explanations later.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Spiderman and Star Wars in the Same Month!! The only way to top that would be nude pics of Lara Croft. The fanboys came up out of their mothers' basements twice in May. Maybe while they are out in the sun, they will notice that there is a world beyond their mothers' basements and chat rooms. May be they even meet a real girl!
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Stan Lee created Spider-Man as a comic book character in the 1960s.
So...exactly WHICH generation are you attempting to pompously proclamate for?
Yeah, these just scream class.
You're just figuring that out now?
But like most good trolls, he generates the traffic, so slashdot keeps posting his crap. But his articles are like automobile accidents you're passing... you don't want to look, but you just have to.
Suckered again.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I don't know about you, but I thought Django "Reinhardt" Fett was pretty "cool" with his flame-throwing guitar and everything ;-)
Who is the hero? Or at least who are the characters that the audience can identify with?
In ep 4-6, we had Luke (a farm boy of mysterious heritage who is going off to find adventure and girls), Han (a scoundrel who finds his moral core) and Leia (a kick-ass princess fighting for everything she holds dear; her planet is destroyed near the end of the first reel, the bad guys are out to kill her...).
In ep 1-2, we've got Anakin (who grows up to be evil), Padme (whose "handmaidens" are related to the red-shirted security guys in Star Trek) and Jar-Jar (stupid, annoying, gullible, annoying).
I liked Spiderman because I could (somewhat) identify with Peter Parker -- heck, if he were real, he'd probably be on /. somewhere! I was interested in how he developed, and what was happening even though there were few surprises in the movie. I cared about him.
I was left cold by AOTC because I was watching characters that I didn't really care about (did they ever feel like they were in danger to you? (see Tomb Raider for another example)) doing things about which I already knew the outcome. I understand that ATOC was "Act II", which is essentially plot exposition and more setbacks in the great scheme of things, but I just didn't care.
And where does Lucas come up with the names? Dooku? As well as the similarity of "Padme" and "Padewan"? But I would love to see Samuel Jackson as "Darth Shaft" (a mean Jedi mother-f...er)
Cthulhu Barata Nikto
wanna start by saying I LOVED the yoda scene. So...blah!
There was a short little scene though that played out in a way that made NO sense. If the characters had done the logical thing, then it would have ended almost everything.
Samuel Jackson's character has a lightsabre to the throat of the Evil Bad Guy. The Evil Bad Guy's partners are all surrounded by Jedi Knights. Then a few droids come out, so the Jedi all let the Evil Bad Guys go so they can fight the driods. Those Evil Bad Guys would have made wonderful body shields against the attacks from the droids there...what was up with that?
"There is a very insightful point in the article describing how the re-mastered Star Wars has Greedo shoot Han Solo first, making it look like Han Solo acted in self-defence, and effectively 'nicing' up his character. In the original, he shoots first. In the new movies, only robots get shot."
OK, I'm lame and it's OT, but this _really_ pisses me the fuck off. Between this, the fact that the original movies STILL haven't been released on DVD, and the fact that the original unmodified VHS versions aren't available new anymore, if I were ever to meet Lucas I would want to say "You pompous, greedy control freak, get out of my way" rather than "Thanks for the movies man, you rock".
Pissed LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Sure there are real world references, but they aren't about present real world references. Lucas has already said in a past interview ( not sure which one though ) that he has been inspired by historical events, cultures and myths. If you look at Star Wars this is most certainly the case, but in the end Lucas used what ever was necessary to make a good story.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Hear, hear! And poorly researched besides. Nowhere did Katz mention, as gobs of mainstream articles do, that the marketing effort for AotC was substantially reduced from Episode I's, and it had way less hype than Spider-Man. Personally I saw Spider-Man ads on billboards and the sides of buses about ten times more than AotC ads.
Other Occam's razor points in favor of AotC:
Rebutting Katz is so easy it's boring. Yawn.
Either way, the whole metric is stupid and irrelevant. There are too many other factors in play.
For example, I've seen the movie twice, once while at school and again at home with some friends. The screen I saw it on the first time was a huge digi-screen in a huge megaplex. The second time I saw it in a small theare which was close to 1/4 the size of the first one. So different screens bring in different amounts of revenue. Additionally, the price of a movie at school is $10, while at home it's only $7.50.
If a movie shows on 150 screens, at 150 people each, at $7.5 per ticket in one region, thats
150*150*7.5 = $168,750 per day
If in another region it opens on only half as many screens, but in theatres which are on average 3 times as big, at at $10 per ticket
75*3*150*10 = $337,500 per day (twice as much)
Also, consider differences in time, in which a slightly shorter movie can be shown a few extra times per day on the same number of screens. One could argue that since two movies open across the same theatres, the differnces should affect both films equally. However, two million movies goers paying 6 or 7 dollars each in the midwest may, in general, have different tastes than 12 million people paying 10 dollars each in the northeastern metropolitan areas.
As I think someone mentioned in an earlier story, box office grosses are mainly just marketing tools. There's little consistency in how the data is gathered
Vote Technocratic! Government by killer robots!
You ruined Spider-Man for me.
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).
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?
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.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Spiderman and AToC made it big in the box office. Both movies are good, not the best thing since sliced bread, but GOOD period.
In 10 years will either of them be considered a classic? Such as the first star wars.
Not another Katz article *duck*
Yoda is supposed to be the wiser, more thoughtful jedi. IMO Yoda is more like the emperor. "We don't need no steenking lightsabers." Just some subtle power.
Says who? Yoda is quite powerful, but that would seem to allow him to move like he did. He doesn't have the physical ability to do so, but when he relies on the force to move himself he could be quite agile. If Yoda could just wave his hand and take out Dooku, then there would probably be nothing that could defeat him. Even Palpatine. We know that's not true, so there must be more limitation to his abilities, at least when confronted with a powerful jedi or sith lord. Their abilities nearly cancel each other out, so it comes down to physical combat. Yoda should be quite good with a lightsaber given that he's had over 800 years to practice. That would explain why Dooku beat a hasty retreat by distracting Yoda long enough to allow his escape.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Simply put, I have no idea where Katz dreamed this up at.
That article he links to makes no mention of Spider-man "slaughtering" AoTC..
Spider-man is on pace to gross (at best) $461 million dollars. That's a hefty amount of change.
Yet.. and heres the important part: Attack of the Clones is actually ahead of Episode 1 in terms of sales. Episode 1 grossed $431 million. Why should we not beleive that AoTC (which is a better movie) will not do even better? That puts the new Star Wars film at $30 million short of Spider-man.. in the worst case. I bet its much closer than that.. this is hardly a "slaughter" folks.
I think Episode 2 is a good movie. Its most definitely a star wars... it feels like a star wars. For anyone who can still remember what the original Star Wars was REALLY like (as opposed to the film that people have mind-melded it into), the new Star Wars movie is a great addition to the collection.
This is almost a non-artcile as its very premise is based on what Katz so desperately (For whatever reason) WANTS to beleive is true, but anyone with a fricking calculator and two grams of sense will see it in a much different light.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
I still don't understand the appeal of a universe where a queen is elected, but a senator is appointed.
My other first post is car post.
Says nobody, that's merely my impression of the story.
We know that's not true? I think the story and the character would be much more interesting if he could not be defeated, and simply did not as he knew the pull from the dark side may be too great.
Though perhaps I have Yoda and Gandolf (whom Yoda was patterned after iirc) confused.
In fact, I'd say the new movies are much MORE violent than any of the original three. Think about the scene in ANH in the cantina where Obi-Wan chops off that creature's arm. We don't even see it happen!
Now we have Annakin decapitating Sandpeople, fly creatures getting mashed by machinery and chopped in half, Qui-Gon Jinn getting a lightsaber through his chest.
Lots of implied violence is now shown, and there is a lot more detail. And there is a lot more than just people getting shot with lasers.
mark
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Word is Spiderman cost 30% - 40% more than Star Wars to make. It also opened on 1,000 more screens than Star Wars (meaning another 1,000 or so duplicates to make and distribute).
Star Wars opened mid-week (Thursday), instead of on a Friday.
Star Wars cost about 1/2 of what Spiderman did to advertise.
Star Wars was/is pulling in about DOUBLE what Spiderman was/is on a per-theater basis.
Natalie Portman is hot, but Kirsten Dunst's tits are perfection embodied.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I think that article sums up what I didn't like about the last two movies better than any I've read so far.
The closest characters to the "rogue ideal" in E2 are, oddly enough, Jango and Boba, and I did find myself sympathizing with them probably more than I was "supposed to". I found Jango's death particularly unsatisfying as well, expecting a fight more in line with the one he gave Kenobi, rather than the "oops... *lop*" that he got.
I will say that there were actually humanoids that got hurt and killed in E2, not just droids, but lightsabers leave such nice clean self-cauterizing wounds, don't they?
Seem a ridiculously excessive weight of interpretation to place on which frothy summer blockbuster is a bigger hit.
Perhaps it all simply boils down to the fact that "Spiderman" is the first in its series, while "Episode II" is a sequel of a sequel of a sequel of a sequel. Sequels rarely do as well as the first movie. And for a series to still be drawing huge audiences (whether or not they are the hugest) this far down the line is pretty remarkable.
Call back if "Spiderman V" manages to do better than "Episode II".
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.
watch some t.v. once in a while.
dude, that's Kirsten Dunst, and it's all I need to go see the movie...sure has grown up quite nicely since "Interview with the Vampire" eh?
-- oodabadabaY
AFAICT, it was the other ingredients besides the story line that has made one movie better than another.
I'd like to believe that public choices in which movie to see reflect a fundamental groundswell of enlightenment and rejection of crass commercial values for more enduring qualities. It would be convenient if every video game and movie represents a strong tie to meta myths that Joseph Campbell outlined: they'd sure be a whole lot easier to analyze if they fell into those nice large deep and meaningful categories. But, many moviegoers don't live epic lives: they're just out for a good time.
It's as simple as the fact that AOTC was not as well made a movie as Spiderman. That's it.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I've come up with some new ways for pundits to sneak 9/11 cameos into their articles:
12 Ways To Drive Your Man Crazy In The Wake of September 11th
The Best French Restaurants In The Wake of September 11th
Ten Fashion Dos and Donts In The Wake of September 11th
Low-Impact Techniques to Tighten Your Abs In The Wake of September 11th
Star Wars vs. Spiderman: Which Is Cooler In The Wake of September 11th?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
I am a professional writer. I get paid money for fiction and non-fiction pieces written in my spare time, and by day I am a mild mannered copywriter. Never could I get away with the unsupported conjectural balderdash the Katz tries to foist upon Slashdot readers as meaningful commentary. Every single point in his first paragraph is incorrect, misstated or misleading.* Given the number of comments his stories seem to engender, I'm not surprised he is allowed to continue writing for the site, but his credibility is much closer to that of radio raconteurs who make outrageous political and ethical claims their meal tickets than it is to working class journalists who understand the concepts of facts, research, reliability and accountability. As an opinion piece, his articles tend to be amusing or ignorable, never much above the level of a precocious sixth grader vying for attention amongst more experienced and learned minds, but never really actively offensive when taken in that context. His current piece is so miserable in thought and technique, however; that just reading it brings me close to despair for any uninitiated who stumble across the Slashdot site and think his article belongs in the same category as "news."
0 / ucas/ While a happy synergy developed later, in 1976 it wasn't bandied about as gospel.
"We saw a cultural and generational coup d'etat this month, at least in cinematic terms -- if we were watching."
Wrong on so many levels. There was/is no cultural or generational coup d'etat. As others have pointed out, Spider-Man is older than Star Wars--barring a complete digression into the sources from which Lucas liberally borrowed, and the attending parallel digression for Spider-Man and some look at the intersection of those sources. Second, if there is a generational gap in viewers of the two movies, provide us with a breakdown based on ticket sales, i.e. X people over 30 saw SW:AotC while only Y people in that demographic saw Spider-Man. And vice-versa. Third, how does one define a cultural coup d'etat? This was not impressionism thrust upon the realists. This is two equitably financed, produced and delivered films, both aimed at making money. This is not PI or Eraserhead triumphing overSW:AotC; this is a film aimed at the same general mass audience.
More confusing is a quick search of demographics for today' comic book readers revealed, in American Demographics magazine, "readers are about 24 years old and almost entirely male." Is Katz suggesting 24 versus "us" (perhaps over 30. He does not specify) is a generational gap? Comic bookstore owners have reported that, as a result of the movie, Spider-Man, younger kids are starting to purchase comic books again, however older viewers have driven up the prices of special issues into the tens of thousands of dollars. People requesting Spider-Man comics, if anything, still skew towards the 20+ market (this may be because comic book store customers already lean towards this age.) For a more in-depth breakdown of viewer demographics see the comment below.
"Star Wars was challenged by millions of rebellious kids, who decided to choose a new kind of myth."
Again, Spider-Man is not a "new kind of myth." Nor was the box office result that of an either or proposition. Many people saw both movies. Anecdotal (poorly regarded but available from a myriad of sources, including Wall Street Journal), statistical (still not definitive but available on several theater chain sites) and actual box office demographic information collected at cinemas as people purchased tickets (available, for pay, from several research organizations, and the closest one can get to definitive proof in the area.) all indicate the same general breakdown along age groups for both movies, with Spider-Man attracting more repeat teenage girls (the same group that pushed Titanic to box office heights.) There appears to be no great difference between the two audiences. indeed, many people saw both.
"The next generation unseated its elders -- as is the right of every generation - and is making its own culture, moving away from ours."
This is so illogical as to be painful to all rational beings. Even if more kids did see Spider-Man than SW:AotC, both movies were made by people not of the youth generation. Even the stars of the movie were considerably older than the youth Katz suggests are unseating their elders. Stan Lee did aim the comic at teenagers. But Lucas frequently insists Star Wars is for kids (hence his reediting of scenes from the originals that may have made 'heroes' morally ambiguous. Ewoks. Jar-Jar. 'Nuff said.) Accepting Hollywood pablum produced by capitalism driven syndicates is more attuned to rooting for gladiators than it is to a spark of rebellion. There wasn't even a real choice for youth wishing to unseat their elders, except to not watch any of Hollywood's or independently-made films, but to instead make their own.
"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."
As many others have posted, Spider-Man's hype machine spent more than AotC, it opened on more screens, had nearly 40 years of recognition backing the name and could easily be accused of selling out on so many levels that discussing the fallaciousness on that level is too easy. Since Katz's preceding statement mentions moving away from our culture though, one wonders if patriotism is not part of ours. If simpler-storytelling allows for some special effects and CG, but not others. If Spider-Man web shooters are not a whorish sellout (why "whorish"? Why not "mercenary"?) why are AotC lightsabers?
*" I, for one, sure hope so."
Can't really argue with this statement. Only he would know if this were true or not.
As for the rest of the article, it descends into a quagmire of foolishness from which simple syllogisms could never escape. As sort of a black hole of poor writing and reasoning, I'll simply mention a few quick points. Campbell had nothing to do with Star Wars. http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/04/1
The intent of the filmmaker is, at best, secondary, after the product is released into the wild. If Lucas wants nothing more than to squeeze every last dime out of the franchise, who cares. If he makes good movies he can; if he doesn't, the money well goes dry. If the complaint is that Lucas is attempting to milk the franchise with bad movies, again, so what. SW:ANH does not become less dear to its admirers because knock-offs, sequels and clones (not too much paranomasia intended) have since come out. The Godfather is no less a brilliant film because GIII was not so good. Ray Harryhausen no less a genius for his last few films having problems. Citizen Kane will never become a worse movie simply because Welles was later known for hawking Paul Masson wines.
Katz's article is, while not necessarily the worst of his oeuvre, certainly a piece of poorly worded, poorly though-out, poorly research drivel. Perhaps Slashdot might, introduce some sort of mandatory fact checking for contributors, at least those on the staff.
Reality is what won't go away when you stop believing in it. Philip K. Dick
I mean, have you ever heard dialogs that bad? You can't quote a single line from this movie without sounding like a fool. Even the cool graphics cannot save this movie. This isn't a movie for kids; kids are smarter than that. But the worst part is the acting... it's terrible! Lucas has achieved the almost impossible: making some excellent actors be their worst. Way to go, Lucas. Now, time for retirement (may I suggest Tatooine?)... I bet the next time I'll see a Star Wars sequel (actually prequel) will be on MST3K.
"Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", "Star Trek", "Spider-Man". All of them decades old. The only recent big media myths I can think of are "Buffy", "The Matrix", and "The X-Files", and even those are getting old. Essentially, big media companies are conservative and not willing to drop a hundred million on something really new and innovative. Hence, "Terminator 3".
The solution? Technology will soon allow people to make cinematic quality movies in their basements. It has already started. Soon, we will be making our own movies, and finally those creative geniuses who are not working for big media will be able to express themselves. When they do, we should be ready to experience something new and brilliant.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
This may also be one reason why he has become so bull-headed about doing it his way. Humans have an odd reaction when another person does the first person's "own" work better. He may feel a little down about himself not having done it as well as Empire and so now knowingly or unknowingly is out trying to prove himself (which happens in this case to probably only be making it worse).
Pentalon
If I show on 20 screens with 10 seats each or 1 megatheatre with 343 seats, which gives more opportunity for people to see it? (The answer is: it depends... one option offers more show times and can be better distributed, the other offers more raw seating potential).
Statistics is such a wonderful art of deception (intentional and otherwise)....
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
I have not seen either movie (I *am* an adult), but since when is one mega-hype outselling another mega-hype such a big deal?
This is hardly the same as everyone ignoring the Star Wars movie and going to see My Dinner With Andre.
Alright. . .
.
I'll get into it.
First off. .
While it's always interesting to look at the broad socio-cultural dynamics in mass media, I think perhaps Katz is searching rather too deeply here for a reason. Aside from the fact that Spiderman is a decade or so older than even the first Star Wars film, (which makes it anything but a youthful rebellion against convention), the reason Sam Raimi's film is making more than George's is that it was a better movie. This has been pointed out several times already.
What hasn't been successfully pointed out is why. People seem to be a little confused as to why the latest entry in the Star Wars franchise didn't ring any bells. Yes, they say things like, "Bad Dialogue" and "Bad Acting," but that's somewhat off the mark. And I sympathize. Such a lumbering monstrosity as AOTC, which worked on some levels, looked good, and generally entertained for nearly three hours despite it's being riddled with flaws, makes it difficult to see exactly where and how it went wrong.
I'd like to offer that the fact George didn't have a completed script before he started shooting as the prime culprit. That, and George has forgotten how to direct. --I refuse to put the actors at fault for what ended up on the screen. That's silly. I don't care how talented you are as an actor, You try pulling off some of the things they were required to say with integrity, a straight face and weak directing!
Take a look at the website for the Matrix, Reloaded. Look at the interviews and artwork done by the concept and story board artists. Every single scene of that film was worked out and adjusted with the director's approval, penciled and inked on paper in excruciating detail. The story board for the first film was VERY complete. Certain sections were even animated just to work out how they should look. And why? Because only if you do it this way can you be certain of what your finished product will look like on the big screen. This is a way of 'beta-testing' your film.
And it works. The first Matrix film was wonderfully done. There were very few kinks in the mix, and the pacing was wonderful.
However, the system by which the latest Star Wars films were made is entirely different.
George has basically invented a new way of movie making. Rather than shooting the all the footage, inserting the effects, and then sitting down with the finished film to edit everything into a finished product, The Phantom Menace and Clones were shot, edited and treated all at the same time. The daily video which came off the set or from location, was digitally sent to the editors that afternoon to be spliced together with the rest of the scenes in the 'master' copy of the film. At certain points, the master copy was made up from some scenes which were just green screens with actors talking, or a hand drawn animated sequences of a space fight or what have you, but the whole film was essentially right there on the non-linear editor. As new scenes, effects, etc., became available, they were spliced in to replace less finished scenes. And the film grew like this.
This allows, potentially, for increased efficiencies in production and for problems to be caught early on. It allows for massive flexibility. Unfortunately, it also clearly has the power to fool a director into thinking that just because he can create on the fly, that he should try to do so. --George clearly wanted to make the actual writing part of this non-linear process, which I feel, was a huge mistake.
The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles were produced using an earlier version of this process. They looked ten times more expensive than they actually were, thanks to the efficiencies provided by the digital system. They told fun, sophisticated stories which on the whole, were highly entertaining. The difference between them and the last two Star Wars films were that each episode of Chronicles was first written by a respected and accomplished writer and then carefully edited into shape before being stamped with approval to be shot. And when they were shot, it was done by a skilled director. (Not Lucas.) Planning and directing. These two items make all the difference in the world!
The ironic part is that the super precision with which the Matrix was written, planned and story boarded was not something new. The Wachowski brothers were simply following George Lucas's lead. Back in the days when The Empire Strikes Back was being made, every shot and scene was meticulously planned in pencil and ink. Some scenes were even fully hand animated. Nobody was going to waste an inch of expensive film or a minute of expensive production time shooting something which they weren't pretty damned certain was work.
So yes, Video non-linear editing and the wonderfully efficient system Lucas has managed to create over the last fifteen years is an amazingly powerful and ingenious contraption. It makes error and experimentation fairly inexpensive. But in the final analysis, perhaps this is not such a good thing. Perhaps that much creative freedom only encourages laziness.
-Fantastic Lad
No, Jon just forgot to watch the movie again.
(SPOILER)
What he describes is a half second flash of movement of the wallcrawler
swinging around various buildings in New York. He swings to a flagpole
on top of one building, takes an instant to get his bearings, and is off again.
There is an American Flag attached to the flagpole; frankly I
(and the rest of the audience) would have been more surprised if there had
not been a flag attached to that pole. That is a common cliche of
American films, New York City films, Superhero films, many action films
and certainly every summer blockbuster film that has been released in the U.S.
since Independence Day (and probably before) .
Katz seems to be out of touch with the recovery of post-9/11 America, where
he sees something "unabashedly domestic and patriotic" in a part of a film
that prior to 9/11 would just have been seen as Hollywood S.O.P.
I actually preferred the way they treated the flag in Spider-Man; it was
a good-feeling yet subtle reminder of where the story takes place (and where
some of the values of the Main Character come from), without needing to bash
that message in as if the viewers are too ignorant to feel pride in our
common upbringing.
And unless I missed my modern geography, all the other skyscrapers
on the island of Manhatten are "not far from where the World Trade Center Towers
used to stand", relatively speaking.
I would rather watch Spongebob then either clones or Spiderman with my sons (15 and 8). If there is a new cultural icon in my house it is Spongebob and Patrick.
You are right. And unfortunately I don't think it's a joke.
Spider-Man's success is a "... movement away from whorish sellouts?" Holy shit, can't he see what a totally false assertion that is? In my local supermarket, Spider-Man cereal outnumbers Star Wars cereal at least 2 to 1.
His claims are absolutely idiotic. I guess as a "pundit" Katz feels the need to draw some kind of socially significant conjecture, no matter how fatuous it might be.
That makes Lucas, who showed no such restraint, all the more hypocritical and pretentious...
Am I missing something? If Lucas had argued for restraint, then done this kind of marketing, then yes, hypocritical would be the right word. Not sure how he's pretentious, either.
To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."
Or is that "inconceivable?"
The next generation unseated its elders [...]
Not on Star Trek they didn't. Captain Kirk is still the man!
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
I saw AotC two days ago. I came out utterly confused. Now, previously Star Wars was so incredibly simple that a 6 year old could fully understand the plot. AotC has taken a completely different way. There were far too many story lines to follow, and WAY too much was left unexplained. The biggest problem, however was the lack of clear-cut good vs. evil. We all know Anakin is evil. Or turns evil. But he's not evil yet. And the head of the senate - he's pretty evil, but the Jedi are still protecting him. And the Jedi are fighting a war with the Sith, but the Jedi are using an army that they happened to stumble upon, provided by someone evil? I think Lucas probably intended it this way, as at some point in the Star Wars universe, everything needs to get turned upside down so Anakin can turn to the Dark Site. But the entire time during AotC, everything seemed grey. While it might fit into the overall plot, it doesn't stand alone as an entertaining movie. AotC spent too much time showing off effects and fight scenes, and too little time developing what was actually going on in the universe. Lucas seems to be OK breezing over plots by letting the committees fill in the audience (Jedi or Naboo's) and getting to the next fight scene as quick as possible. For these reasons, Spider-Man, hands down, is a MUCH better movie than AotC. Spider-Man spent time on plot and character development, scattered with just enough fight scenes to make it all interesting. Anakin goes through the movie frustrated, but other than him going ape-nuts on those that killed his mother, we see very little character development. In leiu of character development, we are "treated" to an extra-long fight scene at the end that starts with an attempted execution, and ending in a full scale war. I came out of AotC exhausted of watching fight scenes and tired of trying to follow Lucas' convoluted plot lines. I came out of Spider-Man with the a good warm feeling, knowing that in Comics, the guy never gets the girl, but looking forward to what Spider-Man II will offer.
Why all this S movie is better than that S movie talk. It doesn't matter. We spent money on both of them.
.. I'm guessing that there will be more movies... this was episode 1. It uses the hardware instead of creating it. This movie show us about chaos effect... being bad/ not caring may not have direct consequences... but it will get back to you.
Besides making money:
Starwars to me is about: makebelieve galactic history, special effects/ hardware pushing.
Its really neat that this movie shows a manufactured chrisis to to create addiction to weapon suppliers... This type thing is quite real.
Spiderman seems to about: personal history
Both stories needed to be told. Both stories could have charged me a bit less money.. (been released on fewer screens to lower costs)
I don't want to be addicted to the movie industry
Please use [ informative / summarizing ] SUBJECT LINES
Flame me here
After 5 Spider-man moves, one would think the same thing. Ex. Superman, Starwars.
Can anyone name any really long running series of movies that truly surpased or even maintained the momentum of past movies that have lasted this long? Just be glad that it isn't another Jason X...
Bye!
Jon, if you expect to have any credibility at all, you need to stop being so sloppy. Whenever you write an editorial like this, you lend merit to your detractors' complaints.
1. Spider-Man was NOT a hyped blockbuster? I'm not even sure you could make the argument that it had less hype than Episode 2. Spider-Man certainly seems to have had many more product tie-ins and marketing tie-ins than Episode 2 did -- and almost as many as Episode 1.
2. Star Wars, making $200M in 12 days -- doing so even faster than Episode 1 did -- is somehow failing?
3. Joseph Campbell did not help Lucas pen Star Wars. That is an urban legend. Joseph Campbell would later use Star Wars to help sell his ideas, and Lucas would then use Campbell to help sell Star Wars. But Campbell and Lucas didn't know about each other until after Star Wars came out.
The third doesn't really affect your point, but the first two do.
What's worse, Jon, is that when you write a sociological article as badly as you've written this one, you not only undermine your own credibility, but you undermine the credibility of real Sociological research, and the benefits it can have for you, me, and the world, by adding to the already-common perception that Sociology is nothing more than pseudoscience with no basis in hard fact and logical extrapolation. This hurts not just you, but all of us.
If you continue writing articles in this way, you will not find much of a career in journalism, and people will largely ignore you, even when you do have something interesting and important to say.
There was no THX at the theater where I saw it.
When I first realized this I was tempted to ask for my money back and then goto a theater that had THX. IMHO it's just wrong to see STAR WARS on anything less (at least the first time).
Then I realized that the movie was so bad that THX would not have made any difference.
Had it not been for my 8-year old son I probably would have walked out.
My 11-year old daughter and I had to entertain ourselves during the movie by playing MST3K while we watched. It was fun for us, my son didn't notice (Yoda's Jackie Chan impression had him dazzled), and nobody else was sitting close enough to hear our running commentary.
Oh please, Katz! The assertion that Spider-Man is somehow less of a "commercial whore" and Star Wars is laughable. My supermarket is filled with Spider-Man cereal! I've even seen Spider-Man in cellphone commercials! THERE IS SPIDER-MAN MERCHANDISE EVERYWHERE!
... and now nothing George Lucas could do would please them.
Katz, did you even do any research about this? Can you back up your assertion with data? I'd love to see, in hard numbers, how many different products Spider-Man has attached its name to. I'm sure it would rival Star Wars -- and possibly surpass it.
As far as the apparent decrease in popularity of Star Wars, isn't it amazing that even though "Clones" is doing so well at the box office, people still see that as a failure of some kind?
I think what happened is this: during the 15 years hiatus in which new Star Wars movies weren't being made, all the Star Wars fandorks convinced themselves that they were somehow involved in the production process of the movie.
15 years of nonstop Star Wars fantasization later, the fandorks have immersed themselves in scores of SW novels, collectible card games and [awful] fan scripts
The point is, he got it backwards.
Confusing both movies John Katz is, hmmmm? Strong in the Mind Force he is not.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
...the prequel trilogy is a tragedy, which demands a somewhat more mature audience than the popcorn adventure of Episode IV... or Spider-Man.
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.
More importantly - this is just movies guys, NOT religion.
Heretic! Burn him!
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
We know that's not true, so there must be more limitation to his abilities, at least when confronted with a powerful jedi or sith lord.
Ever consider the fact that it would most likely be of the dark side to just "wave his hand" and kill Dooku?
http://movies.go.com/boxoffice/index.html
Totals
Star Wars: AOTC - $202,505,000 in 2 weeks
Spider Man - $334,300,000 in 4 weeks
Last Weekend
Star Wars: AOTC - $61,200,000
Spider Man - $36,500,000
Spider Man has more money for now. Lets see how long that lasts? Personally, I think the Star Wars fans (myself included) are more obsessive and will continue to see AOTC for far longer than Spider Man will be on any screens at all.
At this point, I would question anyone that says Spider Man is a clear leader. Give it time - I just think AOTC will hold longer.
The dark side clouds everything.
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.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
By now everyone seems to have pointed out everyt possible flaw in Katz's thinking from the economics to the marketing, to the appearance that Katz has only read the cliff notes on Joseph Campbell... but something he said caught my attention, and since I haven't seen an answer...
Katz: Do we really care precisely how Anakin Skywalker got pissed off and turned to the Dark Side?
starX: Well... yes, actually.
Well, for what it's worth, I don't see people trying to work out a way to film "Titanic 2" (Attack of the underwater clones?).
Titanic was one of those "wow, lookithat" movies, with some sex mixed in. MIB was an action flik with aliens in it (and a bit with a dog).
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
"...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."
Where the hell do you get that prediction. Not from the linked article which states:
"...Blake predicted "Spider-Man" would end up north of $400 million, possibly getting as far as $450 million, which would make it the third-highest grossing picture of all time behind "Titanic" ($601 million) and "Star Wars" ($461 million). Columbia Pictures is a unit of Sony Corp (news - web sites)..."
Comparing Spider-Man to AotC is not at all valid. For those of us who were enthralled by the Star Wars saga all those years ago; waiting for the long-promised sequel movies gave us for too much time to think of how good the rest of the movies could be.
As many of us found out; the Phantom Menace was not the movie that we wanted. How could it be; two hours of actual film trying to compete with 20 years of avid science fiction reading (I avoided the Star Wars fiction - not for any reason other than I was reading the classics); an entire teenage life thinking about what could happen in the Star Wars films. In my youth; just the thought that there would ever be any other films in the saga was almost mythical.
This is not to say that Phantom Menace did not have some (huge; obvious; horrible!) problems. Spider-Man just did not have this double-decade of cinematic baggage; it is a silly comparison.
And for me; AotC brought back something I really missed in the Phantom Menace - I was excited and intrigued by the story and the visuals. The last hour or so of AotC was fantastic to watch; heatpounding cinema. Nice, fun, light-hearted movie making. It left me with a sense of promise for the next one.
As another poster mentioned; let me see Spider-Man 5 in 20 years doing as well and maybe then we can make some comparisons.
Not valid if Spider-Man 5 comes out in 6 years.
...in "Spiderman" (action for the guys, romance for the girls). But I don't think "Attack of the Clones" was really lacking in chick-ocitude.
In fact, the second time I saw "Send in the Clones" (the title I was jokingly referring to it by before the release actually turns out to be a much better title) I was struck by the number of teen girls in the audience. They seemed to like it a lot. Which I find encouraging when you consider the role Senator Amidala plays in the third act. Definitely not the shrinking violet waiting for a handsome prince to rescue her from the slavers.
Maybe we'll get to see CJ Cherryh's "Angel with a Sword" made into a movie yet.
<DISCLAIMERS type="movie preferences" for="those looking to discount my opinions">I liked Episode II. I even liked Episode I. I've seen Episode II twice. I liked "Spiderman." But I've only seen it once. I think the final act of "Clones" was the best action sequence yet in any Star Wars movie (you can throw in "Spiderman" into the mix and still not beat it).</DISCLAIMERS>
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
...how Blackwolf the Dragon Master feels about this...
Opinions and assholes everybody has one after all....
On with the real meat.
The author misses the point I think. The Epic grew to meet its audience. Which is a good thing. Lucas did exactly what the "old" star wars watchers wanted. We want the answers to the many questions we have always had about how did this happened where did this come from? The backsotry is key in making the entire Star Wars story arc come together. Which exactly how he screwed up so royally in the eyes of the "old" crew in Ep1 it wasn't the Star Wars of old it didn't fit, it didn't really answer any questions. Ep2 is much better, and is a much better fit it answers those questions. Spiderman on the other hand doesn't have that back weight to deal with, it phrases its own new questions and answers(and lets face it everyone in the world knows the basic themes and stories of spiderman, there really are no new suprises there)
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Well, I lost you somewhere in the middle...
No, wait, actually I got bored - on one side that is. On the other however, I must admit that the sheer volume of your essay overwelmed me in it's might and glory and that I am very impressed of what you can make of a difference in box office throughput of two blockbuster movies currently out.
As I just said I couldn't last all the way through (shame on me - I never was good on critical idealism and other philosophical stuff) but I'm shure you've gotten a serious curve from Enkidu/Gilgamesh over Plato, Moses, past Nietzsche, straight up to Timothy Leary.
I really don't understand how people allways bash you whenever you post a story (also because the bottom line being that it's actually a hideos waste of time), yet I somehow really do feel the urge to punch a pillow hard and make gnarling noises and then eventually tear it apart with a loud neandertal scream so that the stuffing goes flying all over the place whenever - yes I guess that is so - whenever I read stuff you wrote. I don't know if that is do to the fact that I'm sitting in front of a bloodless screen when I expierience (guess that's the right word) one of your articles or I get itches I can't really make out from reading it or... I just don't know...I can't..stand...*GASP*
*jumps to feet* *moves over to bed* *grabs pillow* *YAAARGH!* *OOOMPH!* *PUNCH!* *POUNDER!*
etc...
BTW: For a number five in a serial of feature movies - and one that is considered especially dense with stuff that only people who are familiar with the series can grasp - I think E2 did fairly well. *cough*
BTW2: Maybe you just like to hear yourself talk/ read yourself writing a little more than others. That wouldn't be half bad if you'd work on your style a little more if it only where that it wouldn't show all that obvious anymore. I'm actually quite honest with this here.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Jon, I really suggest attempting to get read in a more mature venue - perhaps then you're writing skills will actually come to the fore. Or you'll collapse on the floor after experiencing real criticism...
I don't get it. If Double Dragon would have been stuck in 10,000 theaters it wouldn't have changed its total gross by much (which i believe was a horrid ~3 mil).
Just because you put a movie in many theaters doesn't automatically make it a #1 hit.
If I was interested, I could have easily seen that new star wars movie in the afternoon on Sunday whereas i had to see Spiderman at 11:30pm on Sunday night.
Does anyone know what the average gross per theater for Spiderman was compared with AoTC? What was the drop off rate of Spiderman after the first weekend compared with AoTC (which was 41%), 2nd weekend?
"Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"
I agree with the article, but I don't think the lack of Han was the whole problem. Similar analyses could be made of Obi-wan and Darth Vader. (I refer, of course, to the originals). To put it more generally, the characters in AOTC all sucked. The article implies that the original movie was a healthy mix of ingredients, while AOTC is imbalanced with too much "Jedi" and not enough "Scoundrel". However I don't accept that the "Jedi" of AOTC is equivalent to the "Jedi" of Star Wars. Nor is Dooku an adequate substitute for Darth Vader.
Of course, fans of AOTC will answer any such objections with the "structural defense" - the claim that the movie somehow had to be that way to fit into the bigger picture.
or Empire Strikes Back?
or even Return of the Jedi?
It may be time to boycott Slashdot until they agree to fire Katz.
It's not that I'm particularly fired up over this particular article, but I'm just sick and tired of his drivel. I know, the standard response is "filter out his stories," but do we really want someone like Katz to be a representative of "news for nerds, stuff that matters"? His articles routinely insult the intelligence of Slashdot readers. Do we really want someone who is so blatantly illogical and irrational to be posting on a website which pruports to support the cause of intellectual pursuits and interests?
At the very least, everyone who posted a negative comment on Katz's article should filter him out. I'm going to do it right after I post this. Maybe then the editors, and more importantly the PHB's who employ them, will get an idea of how unpopular Katz really is.
Or, it might be simply the idea that the original idea wasn't simply a film 'targetted at kids'.
I've written about this before here, but the original Star Wars came out at a pretty unique time in the history of American cinema. The films of the 1970's were quite different than the films of the 90's or of the 00's of this new century.
Obviously, it's easy to point to something like Vietnam and say that, well, Star Wars -- the original -- was a pretty canny, subtle response to a culture still mired in the complex politics of the 60's and 70's.
But Star Wars -- the original -- was also whimsical. It was Lucas' response, I think, to growing up in the 50's and being submerged in the California car culture. Sort of a weird, whimsical amalgam of the Cold War mentality of the 50's and 60's mixed in with the savagery of Vietnam but touched here and there with odd bits of folly and idealism. (Sort of like a simplistic reading of the war in Vietnam -- folly, idealism, savagery.)
Star Wars, I think, was aimed at "kids" the same way that Lucas's previous film 'American Graffiti' was -- it was about kids, really, but it wasn't specifically aimed at them.
My "reading" of Star Wars has always been that it's about kids in a complex world. Han and Luke are a couple of hot-rodders, essentially. And they're both going after the girl (one more than the other, of course, but no one can deny the allure of Luke's almost asexual naivete.)
I suspect the film is a mirror of Lucas's own inner-self. When he made Star Wars he was still a big kid that didn't want to give up (or give in) to the emerging complexities of culture. In many ways, Star Wars is an amazingly naive and gentle film -- nothing like 'Return of the Jedi', for example, which is the first film of the series that has (finally) become 'aware of Star Wars.' RotJ is a film aware of itself. Not so with Star Wars (a joy ride) and most definitely not so with ESB (still naive, still riding fast, but showing signs of dark awareness. You could certainly make the argument that ESB is the end of the joyride. From RotJ on it's the legal speed limit all the way)
But you wonder if Lucas had much of a choice. I think the more interesting route for Ep 3 to go would be dark, violent, and absurd. Think of Kurosawa's 'Ran', for example. A film made late in K's life -- but a masterpiece. Filled with savagery and darkness (even though it's one of the most colorful films you'll ever see projected on a screen.) It's quite disturbing, Ran, and is really -- when you think of it -- an astonishing achievement so late in K's life.
It always amazes me to realize that Lucas, Spielburg, Coppola, Fellini, Kurosawa, and Scorsese were all very close -- close in vision, close in their desire for "epic sweep", and close personally. Lucas and Spielburg helped Kurosawa finance several of K's later films, and there's some great shots of Fellini walking and talking with Spielburg in Rome. What's distressing, however, is that as Kurosawa and Fellini aged, their visions became more rareified (if that's the right word.)
One look at Fellini's 'And the Ship Sails On...' and your heart breaks. It's a wonderful film -- much like K's 'Ran' -- and you see these bright-hot glimmers of genius and power shining through. But Lucas seems to be retreating -- afraid to tackle the difficult problems. The excuse is that, well, he really can't: Star Wars is a marketing machine and the marketing is aimed at kids. Taco Bell needs their DooKoo Pootie cups, McDonalds needs their Annie Happy Meals.
But just as Bruno Bettleheim talks about the need for dark fairy tales in the growth of child's mind, Lucas shouldn't be afraid to tackle the real dark stuff.
Okay, after all the hype and the PRO-Spidey rhetoric, me and my sweetie saw it.
Okay, we saw two different movies. I went in expecting a GOOD movie and got a Sam Raimi movie. Damn my forgetfulness! My sweetie went in to see a movie you would watch on cable (i.e. not worth the money to rent) and she said she got more than that.
Not dissing Raimi, who seems to put Ted and Bruce in every flick (nice to see you Bruce, but even I manage to get some exercise now and then). I'm dissing the folks that argued that Spider-man (with hyphen) was a great movie. It is not.
Aside from killing off a major villain (bad move), the wet t-shirt contest, the come-on in the cemetery (eeewwwww!) and the rubber Spider-man (looked more like a superball - very weak CG folks), it read more like a course in what not to do. But, then, Microsoft has the majority of the OS market - just because it is popular doesn't mean it is good.
My sweetie had the same problems with the movie. But figured it was going to suck anyway so was surprised that it didn't suck much. Not much of an endorsement.
"Didn't suck as much as it could..." Philidelphia Post
"Who am I?" A superhero who's spidey-sense apparently fails half-way through the movie. I mean, lets face it, this is a movie where if you see the first half and leave, you get your money's worth. When they do all the CG butt-kicking, it actually gets pretty dull (oh, let me guess, at the last minute he'll jump out of the way [sigh]). I do wish GG had yelled "oh, shit, not in the nuts!" That would have been entertainment.
Now, excuse me if I ignore you all and see ATOTC on my own terms.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
I think this is the worst article Katz has ever written. He graps on to a small fact and blows it out of proportion. His article makes no sense and he jumps around with not train of thought. ARGH!
I went to see Spider-Man and AOTC. I liked them both. What's this guy getting at here? Why didn't he just post "I liked Spider-Man but not Attack of the Clones" and call it a day?
Exactly. I was hoping Jango would play an ambiguous role - maybe the Jedi
would hire him and his kid to do something they couldn't. He was almost the only cool character in the movie, and his relationship to his cloned "son" added depth. I guess he was created almost by accident, in an attempt to "explain" where Boba came from - "genealogy" as Katz puts it.
How many movies really do well in a series anyway? Look at terrible movies like Jason and other scary movies. Yea, they suck bigtime. Scream?
Face it, most movies can't make the second one decent. Jurassic Park 2 sucked in compairsion to the first in the box office. For Star Wars to be on number 5, that's an acomplishment.
LoTR will have a hard time, even though I love it, because it does have so much in it to pack in. Star Wars doesn't have to fit in tomes of masterfully crafted work, sure there are alot of books, but the movies deteremine the books, not the other way around for Star Wars.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
EpII: I actually prefered it over Spiderman. I mean, it seems to be the "cool" thing right now to blast the new Star Wars movies. People complain that it lacks the feeling of the first three... yadda yadda... Jesus himself could have come down from the heavens, wrote the script and directed the movie and people would have said it sucked and doesn't compare. No matter how good, or bad, these prequels are, they are being compared to a legend. They are being put up against three movies that had a 20 or so year headstart in building up an aura.
Stop spending do much time listing reasons why you don't like the movie and just sit back and enjoy it... I know I did.
Personally, I didn't find Spider-Man to be "blatantly" patriotic, as many people claim. The flag fly-bys were harmless. The story itself was simple and universal. Down to earth humanity mixed with childhood fantasy in just the right doses.
ATOC, on the other hand, irritated the heck out of me. For one, the acting was horrible. The romantic dialogue was laaaammmme. (The only redeeming factor: Awesome action and animation.)But what really ruined it for me: It struck as me as a cheap allegory of a thinly veiled, blatantly American world view, (or at least everything that is bad about the American world view). The not-so-subtle recasting of ethnic and cultural stereotypes into various alien races; the language used in the dense political dialogue. I supposed that was the easiest way to ensure the appeal of the target market: Average (insular) middle-class Americans.
So, ironically, I think ATOC was more patriotic than Spider-Man.
"I respect faith but doubt is what gets you an education." --who knows
Do you know any details as to how it was darker?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Look Jon -- It's a convenient device to raise the battle between Spider-man and AotC to the level of culture-shifting battles between one kids generation and the next.
But to say that Lucas has a lock on marketroid obsession and that the Stan Lee clan hasn't tried to "shroud Spider-man in market hype", and that that's why Spider-man is winning the hearts of all the little Generation X++ers, isn't just wishful thinking... it's plain wrong.
For breakfast this morning, I had Kellog's Spider-man cereal. (Honestly. I really did.) It tasted just like Cap'n Crunch Berries, but it sure looked like little spider webs. I could have tried the Spider-man Pop-tarts or Rice-Krispies, but I was in the mood for something a little sweeter.
After breakfast I signed up for the new Spider-man Cingular account that I saw lots of cool commecials for, and entered to win a custom Spider-man Dodge Viper.
Then I popped over to Wal-mart to pick up the new Spider-man game, and found out I could get a free trip to Universal Studios, complements of Sam Walton! For lunch I "swung into Carl's Jr" or did I "drop into Hardee's" for a quick Spider-man burger, and washed it down with a Spider-man Dr. Pepper, which I became a big fan of ever since I heard they were racing a Spider-man Dr. Pepper car in the NASCAR Busch Series.
The amazing thing is, even the marketing press is completely aware of what Sony Pictures is doing with Spider-man. Why aren't you?
Theres no hero in attack of the clones, there's not really someone to identify with. It's a story thats being told in a movie because millions want it to be told. More More More star wars! Has nothing to do with spider man. Weird article...
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
When episode 1 came out everyone complained it was too much for kids, now this article is complaining that ep 2 isnt aimed at kids enough? And also that George Lucas is too concerned with making money, so he made a film that would make less money than Spiderman? Hummm. Personally, I dont particularly mind the lack of 12 y/os, I like Star Wars as the epic story it is, not just another forumlaic copy of every film thats ever been released. Also, why the hell does every single thing have to be related to 9/11 in some way? I live in the UK, and although I am sympathetic of what happened on 9/11, I dont want every single film that is released to be turned into 1 1/2 hours of American patriotism thankyouverymuch.
Yes, you and the other poster have the same idea. But Yoda is a good guy, so he wouldn't take that route, thus the saber-fight.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Twenty Five years ago, when Star Wars first came out, there was nothing else like it. It was different and exciting. It could afford to have weak dialogue because it was so mind blowing.
Now, with movies like The Matrix, LOTR, Spider-Man and others like them, Star Wars is no longer that different. We are used to seeing alien worlds and spaceships. The audience is much more sophisticated and a weak story without heart cannot be supported by special effects alone. There is not one character as compelling as Han Solo in the first two movies. And Anakin is surely not a character I can relate to. Why would senator Amidala fall in love with a man who just masacred a bunch of inocent beings?
Alex
Which is a better movie? God, they're both hopeless moronic drivel. The big difference it that the prior films and massive hype allowed a clearer realization of how wooden predictable and predictable ATOC would be. Spiderman is "merely" cartoonish.
That is why both are wildly successful
--- What?
Both the Star Wars sequels (the original was a very small film, btw) and Spider-Man are the heavily massaged and market-tested products of an artistically corrupt process. To perceive some sort of generational shift because the audience prefers one or the other is pointless. It's like deciding who is more important, Cher or Brittney Spears (or however her name is spelled). The great films of our time, like the great pop music cds, are not being made in this coutnry, but in China, Finland, Brazil, Iran, Japan and elsewhere. To watch a new movie by, say, Zhang Yimou or Aki Kaarismaaki, is to realize how good movies can be and how cruddy hollywood's products have become.
This is the funny part. I posted it at Score: 1, and this is what happened: Moderation Totals: Offtopic=1, Flamebait=1, Troll=2, Insightful=6, Informative=1, Overrated=3, Total=14. And of course, the score is still: 1.
/., but when it comes to being exposed to the world, many aren't very well read at all.
At any rate, I just hope some people actually go out and read some HST. There's a lot of really smart people reading
We all know what's *not* good writing, I just wanted to suggest some writing that is.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
The prequels just don't have the same feel as the old movies. George Lucas has lost it. And all the new technology is hurting the actors performance. Acting in front of a blue screen most of the time is much harder than having a set with actual people to react to. I am not impressed by a bunch of Yoda shaped pixels moving really fast. These days, you see that kind of effect every 2 minutes in a movie.
Star Wars is no more than the sum of a bunch of snazzy special effects and that is no replacement for a good story. Star Wars is good fun for an afternoon, but it no longer the kind of legend that it once was. It has lost its soul.
I think Peter Jackson is the new George Lucas. Managing to get LOTR to the screen in such a compelling fashion was almost miraculous. He used speciall effects well without taking anything away from the story. Perhaps, George should ask Peter for help in episode 3.
Alex
put the pipe down Jon and back away. You think to much of your own opinions..
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
Oh god, Katz is shooting is mouth off again...
Listen, the amount of money a film makes does *not* turn it into a myth or cultural icon. SO what if Spiderman is going to end up making more than Episode 2? Lucas himself has stated is that his only goal is that Episode2 will fair a bit better than Episode1. So far, he has reached this goal (in the amount of days since the release, Episode2 has surpassed Episode1 in sales).
If the biggest money maker makes a myth, then please explain Titanic. The biggest money maker of all time (not counting inflation). I would hardly call that movie a myth or a cultural icon.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
I have seen SpiderMan twice and AOTC once. That is once more than I would have liked to see AOTC. Everything about it was horrible, from the acting to the story. Spider-Man on the other hand had good characters and a good story. Both were easily to get involved in and made you with you could climb up walls. AOTC on the other hand just made me want to walk out of the theatre.
I liked the Yoda lightsaber-fight scene for precisely that reason: everybody expected Dooku and Yoda to have a "Big Trouble in Little China" style fight where they point their fists at each other and make straining faces.
"You never could beat me, Egg Shen."
Anyone I talk to says that's how they imagined Yoda fighting. His fight scene flew straight in the face of that assumption, and showed that Yoda is definitely not to be underestimated -- even when it comes to lightsaber fights. I appreciated it for that.
What was I supposed to glean from your Tirade ?
All I got was 'spiderman is better than clones ?'
Hello - wakey wakey - they are both crap dolled out to rake in the bucks and have very little bearing on the real world.
Are you sane ? - you just had a major rant over two insignificant pieces of film.
Get a grip, please.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
It bet it would not take too long to find something...
Oh look... here's a little here's something about some software company called Microsoft something or other...
Seriously I suppose you are correct, no point in beating a dead horse? Is there now ?
Digit over and out!
"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt
of course Darth Vader has nothing to do with it,
right?
him life instead of just one)
what made Han Solo so much more interesting
as a hero was his unapologetic nature. His
primary concern at the beginning of the movie
was cold hard cash
made him look like a choir boy with a
broomstick stuck in his bum like P^HLuke..
Of course the Deathstar trench scene was THE
chase scene to beat in its time. Otherwise,
star wars is just another garden variety
"buck rogers".
It was sad to see pimple face teenagers waving
around lightsticks like idiots. It's absolutely
vomit inducing to see the piimple face teenagers
grow up to be rotund balding idiots waving
light sticks about some crummy movies.. yech.
(and don't get me started on the fat ones that
decides to dress up as Leia.. and I don't mean
just the girls)
-- I have enough stupid gadgets to know that I can do without -- http://www.modestneeds.org
Spiderman has done so 'amazingly' well IMHO because it builds upon a known superb foundation - the original comic had one of the most compelling and successful story lines of all time. Plus I believe director Raimi wants to genuinely entertain people with the right mixture of action and comedy.
AoTC's story to me has some neat elements but the details get left out. (Spoilers) For instance, how can anyone explain a planet that somehow gets wiped out from all records and that no one has heard of. Like, I guess no one needs to exchange goods anymore in the Star Wars universe. Or, while the opening city chase sequence was pretty cool, I just couldn't make myself believe that they could continually locate the ship among thousands of ships using the force or not.
I also feel that AoTC crams I daresay too much action together (to the point where it's hard to take in a sequence) but then expands out the story to the point of boredom. I've noticed this too with James Bond flicks lately: they all kind of blend together with no distinctiveness. The action scenes should SOMEHOW tie in with the story in a meaningful way (the worst violation of this, is of course the pod race - gee lets see, a junk dealer won't take any of your money, so somehow we need to have this kid win the pod race to repair our ship and escape. Sigh.)
Last but not least, I believe Lucas' success reflects the pressure he wors under. ANH needed to prove a bunch of people wrong, and it did. At this point, with his money and influence he could show 2 hours of edited & dubbed Battlestar Galatica, call it Star Wars and make a hundred million dollars.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
I think your choice of example pretty much defines your/our degree of being out of touch with current (junk) culture.
You mentioned, 'My Dinner With Andre,' and I realized I actually know what you're talking about and why it's good.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Beat Dead Horse
Kick Dead Horse
Beat Dead Horse Again
Hell Jon, why do you insist on putting readers to sleep? Here's a novel idea: don't use two words when one will do.
Oh and apparently this whole Spidey vs. Skywalker thing is obvious to everyone except you. We've already been over it, thank you.
*Note to Moderators: Stop accepting Jon's stuff. It only encourages him. There are much better ways to use the front page!
This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
yes, that's right. If everyone here went to go see My Dinner With Andre ~ the very universe would collapse onto itself. A very bad thing indeed, unless of course you have a reservation at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
A couple things you guys kinda forgot:
Zones: For the past couple years, the minimum distance between two movie theaters has been dropped dramatically in search for higher profits. I believe Lucas has held to this Zoning somewhat by saying he would only have his movie seen on movie rooms that met to his standards. I don't recall Sony saying anything similar for Spiderman.
Age of viewers: If you go ticket by ticket, a movie that attracts X adults will make more revenue than a movie that attracts X children. Why? Adult tickets cost more than that for children! Sure you can toss in the factor that it takes at least one parent to take a group of one or more kids, but it attracts kids, thus more kids seeing it. This is one reason why you can argue that Harry Potter still made more success than Spiderman. Dollar for dollar, Spidey wins, but if you go by how many people went to see the movie, the damned male witch wins out. =P
As with most statistics, it's important to understand the concepts. The main point is that they are comparing to the fifth Star Wars movie: "Episode II" (confusing, huh?). This, of course, opened only two few weeks after Spider-Man, so chances are ticket prices are close enough for a valid comparison.
My guess is because only gross revenues are reported, not individual sales (which can vary just from time of day...)
Actually, that's not so meaningless. The vast majority of movies follow a general pattern where the first weekend is the largest, then they progressively slide from around 33%-50% per weekend. Given that and a little basic math, the first weekend take can be a good indicator.
Now, there are a few movies that don't do this. Titanic was one (actually hit a 28% increase for its second weekend). Of course, that movie stood out for all sorts of reasons, and was an anomoly. Off-hand, I recall Amistad and Mouse Hunt also grew their second weekends. Of course, those two were initial films from an untested new studio, so there's reason for them also.
If you are interested, check some sites like Box Office Mojo or The Numbers and look at the percentage change, not just the raw numbers.
Sounds like you really need to stop relying on personal preference there and look to industry information. Right off hand I see that February is usually down for ticket sales, while late spring is usually when sales really start to take off. My first Google hit checking things even shows just that. Feb 1999: $341,959,083. May 1999: $742,936,211. Doesn't sound "ridiculous" to me.
Exactly. Unfortunately, it seems that you are missing on this a little. Go to The Numbers and do some looking up. Pay careful attention to the % change from weekend to weekend. That's quite informative. And even more informative is looking at the change in the change. And ponder things like "Why did 'A Beautiful Mind' have a sudden reverse in change from -24% to +28% for the weekend of 2/15/2002???"
"Do we really care precisely how Anakin Skywalker got pissed off and turned to the Dark Side?" Uh. Yeah. I do.
In J.K. referring to *anything* else, as being pompous.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
What was it about Episode IV that made Episode I look so bad? The same thing that made Spiderman so good: the struggle. In Episode I, the Jedi are already super-powerful. They come in and kick ass. There is no hero's journey for them to go on; they are just galactic policemen.
Think about the use of the Force in Episode IV. How many times did it really manifest? Once. When Vader choked the Admiral. You might count Luke using the Force to shoot a missle up the Death Star's ass, but that could be attributed to luck. It's kinda cool, because it relies more on your imagination than knocking robot troopers around with force-push.
Don't get me wrong, I love using the force powers in Jedi Knight II, but that alone does not a good movie make.
Its simple, really. Spiderman is playing in almost 4000 theaters. Star Wars is only in 3000.
Lucas' refusal to give his customers a bad experience (by playing in theaters with bad sound and bad projection) results in a lower initial box office... but will proabably result in longer legs.
Katz is the whore here- he sells his integrity by backing a mega-corporation hype machine (Spiderman) against the Independant Film - Star Wars.
Star Wars is made outside hollywood, with no hollywood involvement (FOX only distributes it) totally controlled by Lucas-- his own effects companies, his own sound company, his own production company, his own money.
Star Wars- the whole saga- is the triumph of being true to your vision over selling out to the "we gotta get a sequal out" attitude and pandering to those of poor taste. (So this means that those slashdotters who didn't like star wars are of poor taste?! Well, the version released in 77 had all the same issues: bad acting, a reliance on "cute" characters in the name of R2D2 and C3PO, etc. etc.)
Jon Katz is a sellout, whereas Star Wars is a Blockbuster.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
how about james bond? that's still going strong.
-ben-
"You were dead, you were sleeping the big sleep, you were not bothered by things like that."
And futher to your points, does Katz even realise that there's a world outside of the US? Yes, yes, the movies are made in the US, that's all well and good, but heros draped in American flags, believe it or not, tend to alienate and annoy audiences outside America.
Has anyone got the WORLDWIDE sales figures on Spiderman and AoTC? I'm sure Worldwide attendance to AoTC will be far more telling.
I'm not concerned if the director thinks the US is the greatest country on earth, I and hundred of millions of non-americans disagree and have had enough of patriotism being rammed down our throats by movie makers.
Get over yourselves - Katz AND you Hollywood movie makers - and realise that a majority of people who see your work are not of the American persuasion.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
the young, the real avatars of culture...
... thanks for sharing it -- and for bashing Lukas' money-raking ways.
A very important perception, Jon
The comix message has enabled the imagination and courage of adolescents for half-a-century -- thank you St. Stan et. a. -- as against the corporate message that we should all be good cogs and faithful consumers. An incredible new culture is indeed rising up from the rusting ruins obliquely portrayed in Blade Runner & The Matrix. And thank you Holywood.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
The really ironic thing is that AOTC addresses 9/11 directly. IT is all about the triumph of evil when people are swayed by politicians for voting for a war/army that will ultimately be turned against them.
Spiderman is about a guy who goes out and fights crime by himself. Ok, but has no relevance to 9/11.
Katz criticizes star wars for doing something spiderman never even tries to do!
Did he even see the movie? Or did he just not understand it at all?
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
Get over yourselves - Katz AND you Hollywood movie makers - and realise that a majority of people who see your work are not of the American persuasion.
If only Hollywood movie makers read Slashdot. Hell. I'm not even sure Katz reads Slashdot.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
Can somebody *please* find all of the Joseph Campbell books that Katz has been reading, and dispose of them? I'm not usually in favour of destroying books, but Campbell has rotted the brain of at least one previous journalist who got too close (*cough* Bill Moyers *cough*). Enough already!
Did you actually survey the audiences in the movie theatres to discover what age they were? Did you even try? If this is the kids rebelling against their elders culture, can you explain to me why Star Wars is a relic of the 70s and Spiderman's a relic of the 60's? And why do you assume that people couldn't have gone to BOTH movies?
This article is based on a lot of unproven assumptions and dubious interpretations. In fact, at a certain other discussion board (k5), it would have been voted down as a sloppy piece of work, if not as a troll. Which begs the question - who's losing touch with their audience - movie makers or webmasters?
This is really a weird. When you think about it, AoTC and Spiderman are both competing for the same market (Gen-x geeks). It's nice to see that a movie actually won out over a Star Wars movie. I liked AoTC, but Spiderman was even better.
Now, I dissagree with Katz: Spiderman was hyped even more than AoTC.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Actually, mentioning 9/11 is quite relevant when discussing Spider-Man...one of the key scenes in the movie involving the twin towers was removed.
Actually it was a scene in the trailer and in the opening credits. It had NOTHING to do with the content of the movie itself.
It's interesting to note, however, that the modification of the trailer resulted in a delay in the relese of the Mac OS X.1 update. The CD had a copy of the original trailer on it. Apple scrapped the first run and created them all over again, this time sans towers.
t'nera semordnilap
This is by far the most meaningless drivel that he has posted to date.
1. Spiderman opened on about 6 times more screens than AOTC.
2. Spiderman has been around since the sixties, so I fail to see any point whatsoever to this rambling expectoration of a misbegotten idea for what I hesitate to call an article.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
That's not how I would have choreographed that fight.
Look at ESB, Luke vs. Vader. Vader starts out fighting one-handed, while Luke is sweating grunting, balls-out giving it everything he's got like the hot-tempered whiny little out of control punk that he is. Vader holds him off and controls - DOMINATES the fight with quiet dignity. He's steering Luke over to the carbon freezer. . .
I expected something more akin to that out of an 800 year old little green guy. Especially one who walks like he's got an arthritic hip. The jumping spinning spastic monkey he turned into was not dignified at all. I half expected him to begin using the force to fling his feces at Dooku.
As someone who knows at least a little bit about martial arts - both in a practical sense, and a Hollywood sense - I would have written up this fight with Yoda using more wisdom with regard to his strengths as a fighter. Trying to kick someone in the head is like trying to punch someone in the knee. It's not the easiest move, it wastes energy for very little potential payoff, and it exposes some fairly vulnerable areas to attack. Granted, Yoda wasn't throwing any Jet Li kicks, but there was no reason for him to jump up to Dooku's face-level, where his lightsaber was more conveniently located for defense. I would have kept Yoda firmly planted on the ground, using two short light sabers. (long would be impossible, because some of the moves would have the tips cutting the floor). Yoda would have made quick lunging low attacks at Dooku's feet and shins. As silly as that sounds, Dooku would have had a hard time defending against them. He'd have to bend over, stoop down, and be made off balance. On the ground, there's a limited number of directions Yoda could expect to be attacked from. Down there, Dooku does have a reach advantage, but he pretty much has that no matter where Yoda is. With two sabres, Yoda could have eaten that advantage. Yoda has a good defensive advantage, and the ability to attack targets that would be difficult for Dooku to defend. It's a great strategy, because Yoda could easily have cut off a foot or a leg. Then they could have moved the story on and Dooku could have escaped, and gotten a cyber replacement, which would have taken all of 60 seconds of film to portray.
When I first saw Yoda in action, I was half expecting some bullet-time scenes. I'm grateful they didn't do that. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
But, there was enough action in both films to keep me interested. I'm not upset I saw the movies, just upset people seem to think that either of them is remotely important.
bleh
While he is wrong about epII - think about epI for a minute. We don't see pilots scream in death. We dont see any Gungans die in the battle on Naboo. The only living beings that die in Ep1 are starfighter pilots and Darth Maul (and that's okay 'cause he's a Bad Guy). The fighter pilots don't count, they're not real people - they're extras, you never see their face, so to Hollywood they don't really exist.
Every Disney movie in the past 10 years has been more violent then Ep1.
Clue for the clueless: You can always whip up earnings by exploiting the current 'threat' or trend. Very few of the trendy movies end up being classics. This is called "Selling Out." Yes, kids, faux focus-group approved patriotism is selling out. The same focus-group think is the reason they DELETED the trade center from the movie. In the same way as a handful of fanatics DELETED it from the map. It was deemed "Too Risky" to show in their movie. Hint: Were it released a year ago, they would have been in there. 15 years from now, movies set in NYC will happily show the new tower(s).
Clue #2: overmarketing. Yea, Ep 1 was whored to hell and back, and lost bigtime. Thats why the merchandising was cut in a THIRD for #2. Also, the hideous saleable character JarJar was almost entirely nixed, replaced by the ORIGINAL comic relief. If you have a problem with that, you are simply glorifying the original StarWars without thinking about it.
The final statement "That's why kids are flocking repeatedly to a new variety of myth, unseating the reigning one." is fairly telling as well. Movies are NOT just for Kids. Kids movies are for Kids. There's a difference. One type never gets any deeper then "Cool! I'm strong. I bash bad guys now!" while the other has plot, character and intrigue.
I'm not saying SW: Killer Clones From Outer Space was an all-time classic. But it's closer to that end of the spectrum then Spider-Man.
--Dan
Post how far you managed to force yourself to read a Katz article. I tend to think of it along the lines of picking at a sore until it bleeds, just because I am bored. Here is how far I read before stopping:
...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?...
Sad huh? How far did you read?
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
doh! Forgot to multiply by number of showings per day. I shouldn't try to be all smart with numbers right after crawling out of bed. I also should try to get up earlier than 2PM.
Vote Technocratic! Government by killer robots!
Watch it again. There's all sorts of posturing in the fight. Note how Yoda badassingly clears his robe from his lightsaber, then grabs it via the force, plus the earlier lightning back and forth with Dooku.
always too late for modding... curses..
anyway: "most certainly a lot less 'We'll love it regardless' fanatics than AOTCs." yeah, everyone loved episode 1 regardless. oh wait that's right, it totally sucked and very few people would say that they "love it" or even particularly care for it. Episode 2 on the other hand, for all its flaws, is a genuinely interesting movie (darth sidius=palpatine? count dooku working *with* the siths to control the republic? siths playing the entire frickin' jedi council for fools? damn) Spider-man, on the other hand, is a nice action movie. period.
just because you don't particularly care for it doesn't make the people who do mindless fanatics.
Another major difference is that AOTC was the second part of the beginning of the movies which we know. It took a lot more thinking and knowledge of the past and future to make it more than some "shoot up parts of space" scifi. Spiderman was new, fresh, and more relational. When Spiderman 2 comes out, which it has been announced, I will be surprised if it can gross over 100 million. Sequels never do as well as the original, and that truly speaks for the brilliance of George Lucas. Now we shall see how Matrix 2 and 3 do this fall...
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
It should be noted, though, that Star Wars didn't really have merchandising at first; it simply wasn't anticipated, precisely because movies had never been able to sustain the kinds of merchandising franchises that SW engendered. Nowadays there are toys, snack foods with tie-in packaging, t-shirts, posters, and all other sorts of stuff imaginable available in stores weeks before a movie opens, but when the original Star Wars first hit (fewer than 40) theaters on May 25th, 1977, the only ancillary products available were the novelization and soundtrack album (which were standard accompaniments for lots of movies even then, even for movies that otherwise don't have merchandise), and the first few issues of the Marvel Comics adaptation (which were seen in the same light as the novelization, and pushed by Fox to help promote the film to its expected target audience [future Slashdot readers ;)], since before the movie opened, nobody knew it would become the phenomenon it did). Hell, toymaker Kenner, which wound up making ungodly numbers of SW toys over the next several years and a huge profit upon them, didn't even get the rights until just after the movie opened; action figures weren't widely available until January of '78. The point here is that mass merchandising wasn't anticipated or effected until the original film had proven itself a cultural phenomenon on its own terms - that's why it was cultivated into such a colossal marketing/licensing behemoth. It proved such things were possible, something not known before the film came out.
More like over 35 years. Spiderman's been around since at least 1965, although at this late date some of my memories from those years tend to blur together, although I'm pretty sure he was post Fantastic Four and Howlin' Commmandos and pre-Daredevil (and much before Silver Surfer), though I'm not sure about The Avengers. Need to go get that box out of the attic and check copyright dates.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Admittedly, the Tolkein merchandising isn't out of hand, but try reading the above sentence in the presence of my Burger King light-up LOTR goblet with Frodo on the side. (Yes, I actually bought one of the things, because when I fill it with some weird alcoholic beverage I generally think it's hilarious once I get to the bottom of the cup.)
And I've been seeing more LOTR action figures and other stuff recently, or maybe I wasn't paying attention earlier.
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
Gotta agree with you on the fighting style. While I have no doubt that Yoda should be able to manage flinging himself about like he did due to his mastery of the force, you're right about the fighting style not making a lot of sense.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It is important to remember that both of these movies have considerable fanbases. Keeping that in mind, AoTC has alot more meat for the geek than the casual viewer; this is always a bad thing for revenue. Lets look at some of the interesting tidbits... Spiderman fans were divided on the issue of the biological web shooter, as opposed to the cartridge based system of yore. Beyond the most dedicated of fans, absolutely nobody cared. AoTC on the other hand has created tons of elated posts on various forums, with comments ranging in scope from those focusing on the clues left for us concerning Boba Fett's inevitable role as a Jedi Hunter, to those focusing on the technical similarities of the transports seen at the end of the movie and Star Destroyers. AoTC is a Star Wars nerds dream come true with tons of details, from technical to political, that are all incredibly coherent. It is this very same abundance of detail that bogs down and complicates the movie from the standpoint of a typical viewer. Instead of being gee-whiz cool, it is instead tedious and confusing. AW CRAP!!! LEAFS LOSE!!! NOO!!!!!!!
Mental Note: If in a lightsaber duel with Yoda, drop a pillar on his friends and run.
Goodness me!! What the hell is up with George "do no wrong" Lucas. All you people that defend this piece of crap are just yearning for your youth and hanging out too see a movie 15 times. Yea I was right there doin that shit too. I think I paid to see it like 5 times. I was so enthralled by Star Wars, episode 4, (shit now I gotta add that tag line to avoid confusion) I loved it! It was new and fresh and it had a few heroes to get behind and it was visually stunning!!! I mean this was done with FILM. Yes celluloid with a silver emulsion that ya had to manipulate in the physical plane. OK. All you programmers are saying "yea but it's easier with a computer" Yes it is, but when a movie falls back on "well the special effects were cool" well ya might as well go to the amusement park, alone. Yes movies are like that, they take us on a ride but they have a story AND DIALOGUE that we can get behind. Without a good script to guide us AND the characters through the story, we're just lost and left with a basket full of pretty colored objects.
What the hell was Jar Jar doing in the senate? What qualified him to "stand in?
How does a lad like "Annie" make it this far in the training when he has NO control over his emotions?
His drolling attitude toward Amidala is pathetic and contrived. He's like, about to just break down in her presence and just weep at her feet. It's a lame portrayal.
Yoda's scene was too short.
Best line in the movie?
"Why do I get the feeling that you shall be the death of me?" Obi to Annie hehehe cool.
It sucked George, I'm sorry but YOU could have done better. I sure do hope that this was just some scaffolding for the next movie, which by the way COULD be your masterwork if you do it right.
I saw both movies. Both movies were entertaining. Why do I go to movies? To be entertained, of course. OK, a small part of me wants to see the "rest of the story" but the entertainment factor is what rates movies in my opinion.
Spiderman: blahblahblah. I read Spidey comics when I was still pissing in my training pants. I know the story and I know the characters.. *ahem* does anyone remember how Spidey's web was originally? How about clever mechanical contraptions strapped to his wrists and fed by cannisters....ring any bells? It was fun to watch.
Episode II: TPM was a _totally_ different movie. AOTC was darker and more involved...certainly more Jedi action. For a prepubescent as I was then, the original Trilogy was very mysterious about the Force and the Jedi. There was alot you _didn't_ know. This second Trilogy is for me. It fills in the gaps and entertains the once-child in me. My kids ate it up, too. It, too, was fun to watch.
The hype: I saw more Spidey ads this past month that I can stomach. I certainly saw lots of Jedi spin from Mr. Lucas but it wasn't anywhere near as bad as with TPM. Let the dollars fall as they may. I am a die-hard comics fan (Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby ROCK!!!) and I am a die-hard believer in the Force...both movie houses raked in plenty of dough and we are not likely to see them stop production on either sequel from _lack_ of dollars so who cares, really???
Make Mine Marvel
'Nuff said.
+that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
Spider-man is circa 1960/70. That is about a decade before Star Wars. Lord of the Rings pre-dated Star Wars by at least 40 years.
That Katz. When you need a highly publicized, mega-hyped troll, you know who to call.
You need to read the 'loading' screen. Knock him down, then fire or acid. Otherwise his HP... er, cynicism/ego... will regenerate at an alarming rate.
Curse you BioWare. BG2 is TOO addictive.
I never once stated that AOTC is for mindless fanatics, but rather that they could rely on the hardcore fans regardless (I mean, seriously, after episode 1 you would think that the fans wouldn't be there to stand in line to watch it at the 12:01 opening : Shouldn't they have to be re-earned? Nope, they were there as early as possible buying tickets, and then standing in line). I haven't even seen AOTCs, and though people seem to be coming out with differing takes on it, it sounds like it's a credible movie.
LOL, woops, they're both hot and I get them mixed up occasionally.
i quote:
forces of good (God/a.k.a. The Force) or Evil (the literal Dark Side
every star wars geek knows this:
the force has a good side (jedi) and a bad, dark side (sith). it is not the force vs dark side.
by placing the force against the dark side you are placing the dark side against itself. by saying the whole force is good, you are making all the sith dudes good. this makes no sense, katz. i demand an explanation, katz. how dare you, katz.
</rant>
<grumble type="postrant">grumble.</grumble>
The weird thing is that Terry Brooks wrote the Phontom Menace. He is not one to adopt a annoying sidekick and has shown a few Solo's in his previous work. I am suprised that he was overtaken by Lucas's new moralities. I don't know the ATOC's writers work, anyone else?
This happy spiderman viewer wont see clones out of pure spite. Movies are expensive nowadays, and they were back when phantom menace came out. i pulled strings and payed for my ticket and got to see it at that first midnight showing(on a school night - before a big senior year paper was due)AND IT SUCKED. i felt so cheated. i dont commonly bend over and see movies at the theaters, but i sure did this time. not so much that night, but when i thought about jar jar and that stoopid guy with all the horns and a DOUBLE light saber the next day, i felt like a total ass. Lucas wont fool me again, and as far as i'm concernced, he owes me.
Spiderman was pure and simple, heartwarming and steeped in good old fashioned(self-deluding) geek values. It was worth my $8.50 at the dirtmall. So i'll see it again and gladly drop 8.50 to do so. i might even watch clones, but if i do, i'll pirate it thankyouverrymuch.
~clearcutting prevents forrest fires
The late mythologist Joseph Campbell (who helped Lucas craft the Skywalker/ Vader saga)...
Somehow the idea has grown that George Lucas and Joseph Campbell were old college buddies that sat around the Skywalker Ranch drinking margaritas and discussing mythology. The fact is that Lucas and Campbell never even met until the 80's, and that Star Wars owes more to pulp sci-fi themes than any mythological archetypes. Only after people started making the Star Wars/mythological connection did Lucas claim any influence from Campbell. Salon has an excellent article on this whole thing.
Katz lets see what spiderman 2-5 earns. Seems to me it will be similar to Batman and Superman. The second may do well but after that who cares. Lucas has 5 films that have earned billions.
Lucas has defined what Mega HITS are not just one show wonders. By the way when is Titanic 2 coming out?
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....
What the shit? Is this engli... oh, its katz. nevermind. Not that i really agree with bashing something cause it's popular, but this is rediculous.
Independence Day? Overly patriotic? You kidding me? The American President saving the world on July 4th? Naaaaaaaaaaah.
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
I think spider man is crap. Joseph Campbell outlines the "classic story" alright and follows its origins right down history. However, the point that Cambell makes, is that every story only contains common basic elements ( hero, villain, heralds, journey to a unknown place, return from that place, a main showdown with the enemy, etc ). What makes a story entertaining and interesting is how it diverges from the classic tale while still maintaining the essence of the "heroes journey". Spider man did quite a poor job of this in my mind. Every event was utterly predictable. AtoC, however, really wove the classic elements together in quite an interesting and unpredictable way.
Both movies had cheesy acting at times, but at least in AtoC it was laughable (thereby entertaining). Spider man's cheese was just not believable while trying to be.
I would like to see the producers of spider man get away with a spider man 4 with such a simple, boring story.
Someone needs to clue Katz into the fact that things don't change. Nothing ever has and nothing ever will. Why, why, WHY does Slashdot keep running this crap that's revelatory and insightful only to 14 year olds?
Bugger.
I'm sure J.R.R. would have just loved one of the glowing Burger King Lord of the Rings mugs...
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
Who ordered the Jedi (very perceptive ones at that) to guard Amidala? Palpatine (Presumably Darth Siddious)
Who shot the Assassin? Jingo Fett.
Who are the clones of? Jingo Fett.
Who pays Mr. Fett? Siddious or his henchmen.
The bullet used conveniently draws the Jedi to the clone world.
It seems fairly probable that Palpatine was counting on Obi-wan finding the clones when he did.
Palpatine uses his position to very carefully micro-mamage everything that occurs.
*My spelling is probably off on the names, I don't care enough to check them.
Any movie that changes based on the climate is just whoring for tickets. I really have trouble, however, believing it was Raimi that made it happen. This was his first blockbuster, and while he did it his way, some things just got taken out of his hands.
And this isn't to say that I'm a SW fan. I enjoyed the movies as a kid, and I enjoy the movies now. But they're just movies. Not films, not mythology, not high art. And Lucas is squeezing every penny out of them.
THE EMPIRE STUMBLES? Where are you from? Here are a few things to consider.
1. Clones had the 2nd biggest weekend of all time (2nd only to Spidey).
2. Clones is 2nd fastest to get to the 100m mark (2nd only to spidey)_
3. Clones is 2nd fastest to reach 200m, 2nd only to spidey.
4. Spidey is 2 weeks ahead in release, give clones time. It's AHEAD of Phantom Menace which finished at $431m.
5. To make your money back on a movie, there is a general rule hollywood follows, spend an equal ammount of money for advertising as you did on making the movie. So, spidey cost $139m to make, and I know they spent well over $250 marketing it. Clones Cost $120m and he spent about $80 on advertising. Think about that one for a moment. 1/3 the advertising, and making comperable money. Empire stumbles? I THINK NOT. If this movie was made by a Studio (Lucas Film is NOT a hollywood studio, but an independent, Fox is merely the distributor)it would be hailed as a box office marvel. Studios would be going nuts planning the next installment.
The Empire stumbles is the WORST conclusion from a completely BIASED point of view. How can you say a movie with such INCREDIBLE box office performance is doing do badly. Lets look at the facts, yes spider man will probably finish higher then Clones, but hell, STar Wars is not sitting atop the box office, Titanic is. WHY? it has a target audience, and it worked that target audience like a crack dealer to his buyers.
Now lets talk story for a moment, let me simply say this, you make one good point about the Hero that everybody can identify with, but WRONG on just about every other point you make. Spiderman is a MUCH older tale the Star Wars. So this whole thing about a new breed of hero for a new generation, THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK, AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Star Wars is a grand tale, about people (some normal, some extraordinary in nature) put into intense situations, and doing extraordinary things. DID you even see clones? I give you merrit for you vocabulary, but your article (Which I am sure you felt was a whitty, insiteful and inspiring one) is WAY off base, and the fantasy of a person who wants to knock the big guy off the top... Lucas' vision is a grand tale, and it is one that will be remembered much longer and by many more then Spider man's could think to be.
Both films are out and being watched by people in spades.
Spiderman is refreshingly quick and entertaining and Attack of the Clones is simply magical.
I'm a Star Wars fan which helps me swing towards AOTC as a favourite. That coupled with the fact that Natalie Portman casts some strange spell on me that forces me do go all glossy eyed!
Slamming George Lucas is futile. He doesn't care. This stuff was written 25 years ago and only polished in recent years. He's laughing. What's more he and his cabal are redefining the way we watch films both with sound and video.
Spiderman on the other hand is Spiderman. It's essentially the same story as you always get with Spiderman. Granted it translated well in to a film but it's still the same boy-has-spider-like-ability-and-keeps-it-a-secret fare.
> mythologist Joseph Campbell (who helped Lucas craft the Skywalker/Vader saga)
This is not true, as well documented by Salon.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Today's heavy-handed patriotism is tomorrow's post-ironic kitsch.
Some day, your kids or grandkids will look back on 2002 in the same way you looked at those old Norman Rockwell prints.
Give me a brake.
Spiderman is a teeny movie with touches of parochialism and cheap shots at patriotism. It says loads about the intended audience.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So, by commenting on a commentary about a movie, all of these people are losers? Then what does that say about someone who comments on the comments on a commentary? I guess that would make you even more of a loser, wouldn't it? Of course, by commenting on the comments on the comments on the commentary, I guess I'm even worse off than you...
I postponed the banning of this individual fro far too long.
After posting this I am going straight to my Preferences and banishing him for good.
What a moron.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hey Jon - ever stop and read your own posts?
Actually Star Wars is coming out on top. Oh, and as for that 4-day vs. 3-day comparison, let's also mention that Star Wars is in about 700 less theaters across the U.S.
I don't think this is even an issue though. Who cares? I simply enjoy the Star Wars saga. I don't care if it beats Spiderman or Harry Potter or Matrix.
Katz is weighing way too heavily on this. These are movies for heaven's sake. Spiderman was a hoot. Star Wars is now drudgery. But I wouldn't call it a failure. And an epic film set in another part of the universe in another time should have an otherworldly feel to it. Katz needs to get out of New York for awhile. 9/11 does not dominate American culture the way he thinks.
No, not kill Dooku but wave his hand in the OTHER direction and prevent Dooku's ship from taking off
...or even use Anakin's spare hand (ducks)
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Do we really care precisely how Anakin Skywalker got pissed off and turned to the Dark Side?
I do. Otherwise, what's the point of the movies?
Spiderman does well because it's competition is scant at best. I liked Spiderman, but I have no urge to go see it again and again and again, shelling out seven or eight bucks each visit.
There was no new ground broken, no risks taken, and I thought the closing "flag" scene was excessively cheesy. It reminded me of several movies in a similar vein produced in the 1950's, among them the Superman series with George Reeves. There is definitely a place for a movie like that. It's called television.
I haven't seen SW-AOTC yet, but it must really suck to not be able to blow Spiderman out of the water.
Republicans are idiots.
If you compare Episode II to other 4th sequels (Think Rocky 5 and Police Academy 5), it doesn't seem so bad.
It's the marketing towards the children.. That's the main problem. I was sick to my stomach when I saw some dumb-ass cartoon trailer for this kid with a football for a head before STARWARS. What the hell is up with that? I don't want to see some snotty Nickelodean trailer before the starwars movie! I like to think that I'm a little older than that.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Yeah... I don't see why Anakin and/or Obi-Wan didn't just throw their sabers at the ship to disable it before they started the fight, heh.
I guess you did not see her on the way to Tatoene(spelling?,) in that white outfit... It must have been COLD in that ship :-)
James Ray Kenney mailto:jrkenney@swbell.net
Katz asks why the "good-vs.-evil hero's tale" in Spider-man is so much better then the one in Attack of the Clones.
Maybe because we expect and want good to win.
The story of the Star Wars prequels is of the fall of Anakin Skywalker - his journey from good to evil. Most people don't want to see that; they want to see an exciting story with lots of action where good triumphs over evil. Culturally, evil isn't supposed to win.
Of course, it doesn't help any that Lucas is trying to make the prequels have the happy excitement of a children's hero-story. He really ought to have gone a darker route...
"They do not sin at all, who sin for love" -Oscar Wilde