The Empire Stumbles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

It's very simple, really.

[Limburgher]

There was no Spider-Man: Episode I.

A better explanation

[dfalgoust]

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

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

Re:A better explanation

[edrugtrader]

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

Re:A better explanation

[p7]

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

[Triskaidekaphobia]

Why is Spider-Man's version surprisingly drubbing Lucas

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

An issue of generational turnover, how?

[Kalabajoui]

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

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

Re:An issue of generational turnover, how?

[FPhlyer]

Exactly my reaction.

I don't see "the kids" (as Katz refers to them) as "creating their own culture" out of this one. Spider-Man first appeared in Amazing Fantasy #15 in 1962. Hello Katz! That's a full FIFTEEN years before the first Star Wars film hit the theatre. Lets not forget the failed 70's Spider-Man TV series and the 80's cartoon version.

Maybe "the kids" are just incapable of generating their own cultural milestones? No. Check out "The Matrix." That would be a much better argument for Katz's to use then "Spider-Man".

Shiny shit still stinks.

[Telastyn]

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

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

Re:Shiny shit still stinks.

[gowen]

I'm afraid, since Episode I came out, Kurtz spends all his time sitting in darkened movie theatres muttering "The horror, the horror"...

Episode 3

[coryboehne]

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.

Other factors

[nagora]

Spider-Man opened on almost twice the screens AotC's did and I'll be amazed if SM makes any significent money outside the US. I've yet to meet anyone here (UK) who's interested in it despite knowing a lot of comic collectors that loved "X-Men"; it also looks awful from the trailers that have appeared in the cinemas.

TWW

A simpler explanation.

[fmaxwell]

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

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

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

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

Re:A simpler explanation.

[Kombat]

[Star Wars: A New Hope] was not about the special effects. They were there to serve the movie, not vice-versa

I'll grant you that in the first three Star Wars, the special effects served the story as a means to an end, and not an end in and of themselves. I'll also grant you that in Episode I, the emphasis was unnecessarily on the effects. However, in AotC, I felt that the effects were back to their rightful role of simply supporting the story, rather than drawing attention away from the story. There were a couple exceptions where I felt the effects needlessly grabbed my attention, but surprisingly, it occurred less than they did in Spiderman.

That is, in Spiderman, the effects were terrible. When he had just discovered his powers, and was running across the rooftops, it looked horrible, cheap, tacky, and worst of all, fake. The web-swinging scenes were spectacular, but they were spectacular in the same way that the intro cinematics to a Final Fantasy game are spectacular. A great achievement of computing, but obviously a computing achievement.

In AotC, most of the time, I didn't even notice the effects, although of course I knew they were there. For example, the Jedi/droid battle in the arena. That was an amazing scene, and looked incredibly real. Also, the battle outside the city between the clones and the droids - also exceptionally well done. The Yoda fight scene was a little obvious, but overall, I think AotC is much more fluid between effects/reality than Episode I, and I don't think your statement is fair.

Much simpler than that

[PD]

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

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

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

Re:Much simpler than that

[argStyopa]

I know an actor or two (minor) that were in the production of TPM. According to them, GL's directing style is to look like he's thinking really really hard, then shout "We need to do it again. I need more energy, people! Energy!"

Every shot at least 4 times. Even quiet dialogue scenes.

Huh?

[jayhawk88]

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

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

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

Re:Huh?

[skirch]

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

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

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

Are we comparing apples to oranges?

[cutecub]

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

Post 9/11 America?

[MisterBlister]

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

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

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

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

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

Inventing an Issue

[ChaoticCoyote]

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

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

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

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

AoC better than Spiderman

[bwt]

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

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

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

That's hilarious, Katz.

[Stickerboy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it's because Spider is also a chick flick

[gelfling]

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.

Star Wars creamed the spin-offs from day one.

[Spudley]

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

Re:911?

[JWW]

Just wait until Katz's article about how insensitive "The Two Towers", will be.

Its coming.

Re:This isn't a big deal

[lamz]

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.

Re:This isn't a big deal

[Kombat]

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

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

Re:But what is a saga

[Spencerian]

Your 2 cents is worth a dollar to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think...

[Dick_Fury]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choose one mega-corp over another, very rebellious

[tenzig_112]

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

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

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

The Katz piece was hilarous [intentional or not].

What Makes it Better??

[Bilbo]

People prefer good movies to mediocre ones.

Well duh!

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

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

Die.

[Gannoc]

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

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

Re:Please, NO MORE 9/11 EXCUSES!

[foobario]

9/11 is the new Godwin's Law... instead of a process where small minds cause every online discussion to inevitably lead to some comparison to Hitler or the Nazis, we now have a phenomenon where small minds perceive some sort of relevance to 9/11 in every discussion. Recall that many of these same small minds swore for weeks after 9/11 that 'if this changes our way of life at all, the terrorists have already won'...

How terribly droll.

"Lucas seemed to fall out of touch with post-9/11 America"? Good for him. Post-9/11 America still has it's head as far up its ass as it did pre-9/11.

BTW, the 'simple love story' scenes in Spiderman were deplorable... I've never seen such bad acting out of Kirsten Dunst... it was almost like there wasn't a director on the set that day, and they just decided to wing it.

Katz is even more pathetic than usual

[Wraithlyn]

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

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

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

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

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

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