>i'm putting this down to either a bad day at the office or the
>insidious atmosphere of PTP, lol

also, i won't deny having a slight hard-on for the poster, who has frequently been quite rude to me in posts

but axes to grind aside, objectively speaking, i do not think that he offers a worthy argument at all. i'm offended enough to hear someone suggest that Spielberg is better than Hitchcock, but opinions are opinions. his justification for his opinion, however, just does not hold water, IMO

he was the one who brought up the fact that he was in his 20s, and hence, could not "feel the impact" of Hitchcock. with that kind of logic, any director who retired or died before the 1980s has no chance!

sure, Spielberg had done plenty of work before the 80s, as had Kubrick, for whom the poster also professed admiration. but the fact that they continued to work through the 80s, 90s and 00s (and in Spielberg's case, still continues to work) he can at least say that they were active during his lifetime, and hence he "felt their impact" in a way that he could not feel Hitchcock, who died in 1980, before he was born.

basically, it's the same kind of logic that rules those MTV, VH1 and BET countdowns of "The Greatest _______ OF ALL TIME!!" where 75% of the lists are always drawn from the past 5 years.

and even if you look past the whole "i wasn't alive to feel the impact" thing, the argument is still lame... talking about Spielberg's technical innovations, but not giving the same regard to Hitchcock's considerable innovations just because he didn't live long enough to create computer-generated dinosaurs.

basically, it's an argument without context and thus, without merit.

________________

"Do you know what a nerd is? A nerd is a human being without enough Africa in him or her." © Brian Eno, "A Year With Swollen Appendices"