Roger Ebert talks about reaction to his Transformers 2 review + anti-intellectualism

[CyberPitz]

Over 9000?

 

[swan_song1973]

ebert's totally right, that movie sucked. the only one ive ever fell asleep in.

 

[Eejit]

I am not sugar-overdosed, thank you very much.

You just think that because your vision is blurry when you look at your blood-sugar monitor.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well said? As individualistic as we like to believe that we are, we really share a lot with everyone else in terms of our cultural expectations of what things mean and where value exists. This being so, there are systems of evaluation by which movies can be very definitely shit. Krynn's silly example about marshmallows and beer was pretty close to the mark.

me too. I didnt jump on the hate ebert bandwagon back when he said games are not art ...because I agree with him

At risk of diverting the thread off topic (into something more interesting cough cough) that's not his argument at all - he says rather that games can never be art, and his arguments are spurious. If games are in a poor state of artistic development right now, they need not be forever, and it is not for the reason Ebert claims.

 

[CptStern]

I was under the impression that he said something to the effect of "maybe someday down the road but not now"

I dont think it's technological issue that's preventing it from being "art"

 

[Ennui]

I don't always agree with Ebert but he hit the nail on the head with this one.

 

[Absinthe]

Ebert's argument against games being art was primarily around player choice. Ignoring issues of technology, game scripts, and all that jazz, he thinks it's a limitation of the medium. Player choice entails loss of the author's control, and therefore it's not art. Or something to that extent. He thinks the interactivity of games is what prevents them from ever being art, not just now.

Of course, his thoughts are sprinkled with gems like:

But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

Kudos, Roger.

 

[Darkside55]

That's some ol' bullshit.

 

[StardogChampion]

Player choice entails loss of the author's control, and therefore it's not art. Or something to that extent. He thinks the interactivity of games is what prevents them from ever being art, not just now.

Although I was just at an art exhibition where there was an interactive 3D exhibit of Osama Bin Laden's house that you could walk around with a joystick.

http://collections.iwm.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.913

 

[Krynn72]

Krynn's silly example about marshmallows and beer was pretty close to the mark.

Why thank you sulk, I spent a long time coming up with it.

 

[ríomhaire]

Ebert's argument against games being art was primarily around player choice. Ignoring issues of technology, game scripts, and all that jazz, he thinks it's a limitation of the medium. Player choice entails loss of the author's control, and therefore it's not art. Or something to that extent. He thinks the interactivity of games is what prevents them from ever being art, not just now.

I don't agree with this arguement. If a film can be art then I certainly don't see what prevents a totally linear game from being art. Games like Half-Life 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 have completely structured story and presentation with the only choices being presented to the player really being how exactly to kill the next enemy, and sometimes there isn't any choice in that.

 

[Sulkdodds]

This is of course a big problem with Ebert's argument. Many games don't actually give you choice.

 

[Zephos]

As much as I love Ebert (I have his books for christ sake), his stance on gaming is very silly. He should play Bioshock, it was quite the illustration of the illusion of choice in video games.

 

[Laivasse]

Ebert's argument on gaming was frankly stupid. It's all very well to adopt a stance saying that gaming can't be considered art because it's still in its relative infancy as a medium, but his stance - essentially that choice 'breaks' art - wasn't based on anything at all. Giving choice to a player doesn't mean that the creator(s) lose authorship of the experience. Ebert also gave the strong impression that his exposure to games has been minimal, considering how he thought he could write off the whole medium without referencing anything other than Myst.

Then he tried to backpedal slightly, stating that games can be art but not high art - an assertion which would have more philosophical weight if he bothered to give his definition of high art, or if he wasn't just trying to redefine the argument in more and more nebulous terms in order to cloak the fact that he doesn't have a shitting clue what he's talking about when it comes to games. If your career is criticism then surely it makes sense to only criticise what you know, or else people like me will end up considering you a hack. Furthermore, in every comment I've seen from him on the issue he's been a snarky, pretentious, elitist c*nt about it, so he personally invited whatever hatemail happened to land on his doorstep as a result.

On-topic: Transformers 2, bleh, haven't seen it, probably won't ever. It's clear to me, however, that a medium characterised by giant transforming robots and unintellectual visceral thrills can't ever produce high art. /irony

 

[Kadayi]

Why people get so worked up about a film based around a TV show that was a syndicated Toy advert is beyond me tbh.

 

[jverne]

Why people get so worked up about a film based around a TV show that was a syndicated Toy advert is beyond me tbh.

because this movie caused the average human intelligence to dramatically drop.

this movie nowadays is considered successful...and a good movie





but then again dog fights 150 ago weren't exactly the pinnacle of human intellect either.

meh...humanity sucks

 

[CptStern]

because this movie caused the average human intelligence to dramatically drop.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" has reached another Hollywood milestone.

The sci-fi blockbuster shot past the $300 million mark domestically on Tuesday ? after just 14 days in release.

That makes it the second-fastest movie to top $300 million, behind last summer's "The Dark Knight," which made it in 10 days.

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-transformers2,0,6174671.story

 

[Rico]

I need to go make a Dragonball Z movie to cash in on naive people's consumerist childhoods now.

Oh damn, beaten to it. Maybe Power Rangers? Oh shit, really? Erm... Gi-Joe? No wait, Speed Racer.

Well god damn, how about Inspector Gadget? Underdog?

****. I guess I'll go make a Yu-gioh or some kind of pokemon live action movie. I'll make millions.

 

[theotherguy]

I need to go make a Dragonball Z movie to cash in on naive people's consumerist childhoods now.

Oh damn, beaten to it. Maybe Power Rangers? Oh shit, really? Erm... Gi-Joe? No wait, Speed Racer.

Well god damn, how about Inspector Gadget? Underdog?

****. I guess I'll go make a Yu-gioh or some kind of pokemon live action movie. I'll make millions.

Oh man, they've got to make a dark, cerebral live-action pokemon movie where the pokemon are all terrible hellish creatures that lust for blood.

 

[Qonfused]

I would watch a live action Pokemon movie.

 

[jverne]

you see...this culture of today almost makes me want to not have kids. i just can't be bothered of trying to instill commons sense into my kid. today's youth are just bombarded with stupidity and consumerist ideology. and not just the usual carpet bombing, but precision targeting.

i have to hand it to you stern...raising kids nowadays is just ****ing frustrating. (i think)

 

[Qonfused]

nevermind

 

[Yorick]

i just can't be bothered of trying to instill commons sense into my kid.

And therein lies the real problem.

 

[Deleted member 56031]

good read

So let's focus on those who seriously believe "Transformers" is one of the year's best films. Are these people wrong? Yes. They are wrong. I am fond of the story I tell about Gene Siskel. When a so-called film critic defended a questionable review by saying, "after all, it's opinion," Gene told him: "There is a point when a personal opinion shades off into an error of fact. When you say 'The Valachi Papers' is a better film than 'The Godfather,' you are wrong." Quite true. We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle. Sir, not only do I differ with what you say, but I would certainly not fight to the death for your right to say it. Not me. You have to pick your fights.

Ah, I need to use this in arguments when people think opinions are infallible

 

[CptStern]

you see...this culture of today almost makes me want to not have kids. i just can't be bothered of trying to instill commons sense into my kid. today's youth are just bombarded with stupidity and consumerist ideology. and not just the usual carpet bombing, but precision targeting.

i have to hand it to you stern...raising kids nowadays is just ****ing frustrating. (i think)

yes it is, however it's also very very rewarding. and instilling common sense isnt that hard, you're just passing your morals to your kids or giving them a set of tools so that they'll be better prepared for when something seems to be "common sense" ..the problem with common sense is that it's uncommon (cant remember who said that, might be twain)