Comment Buridan's Ass (Score 1) 1007
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."
"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/2002/04/10 / ucas/ While a happy synergy developed later, in 1976 it wasn't bandied about as gospel.
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.
"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.
