the wiki pop culture litmus test
The old show with Siskel and Ebert had a simple test of movie quality: A movie can’t be good if it’s more exciting to watch the actors hanging out. In the same spirit, I offer this test:
The Wiki Pop Culture Test: A movie, book, or TV show can’t be that good if reading the wiki summary is a more satisfying experience than watching/reading the original.
Test cases: Star Wars – Watching the orginal films is clearly better than the wiki summary. However, the wiki summaries of the sequels are way more satisfying than the actual films. The wikis pull together the fascinating background of the Star wars universe without the wretched acting. Dune – The original books are clearly better than the wikis, but the wiki summary of the new series, written by Herbert’s son, is way more interesting. You get the basic plot points, without the tedious exposition and action driven narrative. Buffy the Vampire Slayer - I haven’t watched the whole series and the wiki is highly informative, but it’s no replacement for the sizzle of the best episodes. Try the wiki pop culture rule yourself and tell me how it goes.
Bonus Round: Why pop culture? Pop culture is supposed to be accesible and fun. If some book or movie can’t beat a summary written by amateurs, how good can it be? In contrast, high culture is supposed to be challenging and hard, so a wiki distillation may be more enjoyable, but that doesn’t invalidate the importance of the original text.
Perhaps also pop culture is often claimed by certain super-fans who try to extend and complicate the object in question, thus “sucking the fun” out of it. Or, perhaps they are attempting to make high culture out of pop culture and when there is a type mismatch, either the summary or the actual media seems less enjoyable.
Trey
July 7, 2009 at 9:21 pm
My personal litmus test has been the “Willow Scale.” That is to ask yourself, was the film/tv show/song/concert/meal/article better or worse than watching the film Willow? Since Willow embodies mediocrity in my mind (i.e. a perfect 2.5 out of 5 stars), it serves as a convenient baseline when I’m feeling ambivalent.
I suppose the real question here is whether or not reading Willow’s wiki summary is as good as the film itself. Before comparing, I’m going to posit that they are precisely equivalent.
And for the record, I would rank OrgTheory well above Willow (but maybe *just below* Robocop–there’s no competing with Veerhoeven).
Chad Borkenhagen
July 8, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Can you read the Willow wiki and give me your opinion, Chad? I can barely remember Willow, so I need a second opinion.
fabiorojas
July 8, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Two words: Verstehen / erklÃĪren
khalil
July 9, 2009 at 12:26 am
This is akin to the argument I’ve used to try to convince my friends that “Lost” is no good. The writers are just big curiosity teases. All of the drama derives from the frustration with the snail’s pace at which they reveal the plot. If you read the Wiki first (“So that’s why there’s a polar bear on the island!”), you realize each show is about 40 minutes of nothing interesting happening.
Carl
July 11, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Fabio, after reading the wiki entry for Willow, I have to admit that the film is better. But it’s only better by a little, and even then only because the wiki entry is kind of dull. (Perhaps no one cares enough about the film to liven it up?) The entry does offer a amusing roundup of ambivalent film reviews, though, and includes this gem:
“[George Lucas] had hoped Willow would earn as much money as E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, but the film faced early competition with Crocodile Dundee II, Big and Rambo III.”
Woe is the film that competes with the Crocodile Dundee empire.
Chad Borkenhagen
July 11, 2009 at 3:37 pm
That kind of jives with my own memory of Willow. It seems to hit that marginal case – if something is truly mediocre, then it won’t generate the wiki that a genuinely good or wretched work will.
fabiorojas
July 11, 2009 at 7:28 pm