Richard in a Box: In other words, what is the objective way to determine the quality of a film?

There are lots - editing, pacing, acting, musical score, cinematography, success at expressing themes, set decoration. Lots of things. Just like there are lots of ways of determining if a woman is physcially attractive. The better you are at all of them, the better your movie is.

bigmattress: mattharvest:
Frankly, you're using the term in a way that no longer conforms to English as a language.

The English language as spoken in the US now has connotations for the words "movie, film, flick" etc. that diverge. While you may not like that the connotations disagree with the literal meaning of the words, you're kinda out of luck given that the rest of the culture disagrees by-and-large.

You may be right, but since this is what I do as a profession, I better stick to the technical terms lest I look like an uneducated moran to my peers.

As Ebert said..."We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle."

Just because the general populace has accepted one term over another doesn't make it right.

"Film" no longer refers to the physical medium, and hasn't for a while. A film can be shot on videotape, or on a purely-digital medium. The physical medium doesn't matter. Perhaps it once did, but no longer. Much the same way I "dial" my phone even though it's been a very, very long time since I owned one with a dial on it.

Bill Frist: Are you telling me that you've never read a book and thought it was an important and well written book even though you personally didn't enjoy reading it that much? Or convesrtely seen a shiatty movie but enjoyed it because you were brain dead at the end of the week and just wanted to see some big explosions, even though you knew the acting, writing and directing where crappy?

This is an important question. I immediately realized the difference between "good" and "enjoyable" when I realized I really didn't enjoy listening to Bach that much. But it would have been beyond arrogant for me to say his music wasn't objectively good. It just doesn't hit my ear right.

Richard in a Box: In other words, what is the objective way to determine the quality of a film?

What is the objective way to determine the quality of a baseball team?

Go into fark sports and people will argue till they are blue in the face about various factors, giving weight to different ones, etc.

This does not mean that every baseball team is as good as any other.

Likewise, teh fact that we can argue about different criteria and different contexts does not mean that every film is as good as any other.

Ok, so I watched the movie, and even though knowing that the Critics ripped it to shreds, I did not think it was a bad, horrific piece of crap that Bay shatted out of whatever orifice you want described here.

I went in looking for a movie that had robots fighting robots and stuff blowing up with Megan Fox in there. I got what I was looking for. I could care less if Michael Bay directed the movie or not. If you were looking for boobs and booms, then great - this was the movie for you.

All of this biatching reminds me of all the trekkie fanboys screaming "CONTINUITY!" with every single Star Trek movie that has ever come out.

You know what?

It's a farking movie. I'm glad I saw it, and yes, I'll buy the movie on DVD/BluRay when it comes out.

I enjoyed it, and if you didn't? Fine - stop complaining about it here and go back to your basements. I think Admiral Kirk is waiting for you there with a basket load of tribbles and a Klingon before they knew how to do make-up.

It's a movie for drewssakes.

Bill Frist: Just because something is hard or complicated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You communist. I bet you voted for Obama.

Richard in a Box: Haven't you been following along? There are right and wrong opinions about films! I'm waiting with baited breath to hear how I can empirically determine what is a good movie henceforth! :)

I guess I honestly think it is childish to think you are going to get a check-list of 5 questions to figure out the quality of a film.

Again, just because something is complex or hard to determine doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What do you think of my baseball analogy?

Bill Frist: Saying "I liked this film" means nothing more than you had a pleasurable enjoyment of the film.

Saying "This film is a good film" implies much more, unless you operate in some weird bubble where you think good means nothing more than your subjective expierence.

Are you telling me that you've never read a book and thought it was an important and well written book even though you personally didn't enjoy reading it that much? Or convesrtely seen a shiatty movie but enjoyed it because you were brain dead at the end of the week and just wanted to see some big explosions, even though you knew the acting, writing and directing where crappy?

If I didn't enjoy a book, it was not well-written to me. I may understand certain historical implications ("This book was the first non-fictional account of blah blah") but it doesn't automatically make that book good in my opinion. How then, is my opinion wrong? Because it is considered by some "experts" in a given field to be well-written? If you feel that way, that's fine, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion or make me wrong in my book.

Bill Frist: Likewise, teh fact that we can argue about different criteria and different contexts does not mean that every film is as good as any other.

I think another important thing to note is that the existence of objective beauty, or quality of film, doesn't ever mean we'll actually be able to figure it out. For example, the top 10 films of all time are bound to be so close in terms of objectively achieving the markers of good film that its basically impossible to figure out which one does the job better. In fact, its highly possible that due to the multi-pronged rubric of quality film-making, its actually impossible to say. But that doesn't mean we can't on the whole create a scale. Even if we can't easily tell if #1 is better than #2, its not that hard to see #3 is better than #923464.

Richard in a Box: If I didn't enjoy a book, it was not well-written to me. I may understand certain historical implications ("This book was the first non-fictional account of blah blah") but it doesn't automatically make that book good in my opinion. How then, is my opinion wrong?

Well, it's extremely arrogant for one thing. Do you personally enjoy every book on the top 100 list, and all of the top 100 composers of all time? Do you really think I should be saying "Bach was not a good composer" because I didn't enjoy him?

Just like America: Loud, explosive, and stupid.

Riiiight?

at80eighty: DamnYankees: mattharvest: Something is only objectively true if it would be true regardless of any context.

This is false. You're notion of objectivity and subjectivity is incorrect. It doesn't have to to with "context", but on whether or not the decision must be made by a conscious entity. IOW, can you create a framework where you don't need to apply any judgments in order to figure out whether something is true or false. The English language provides such a framework for its word. Numbers provide such a framework for math. And we can provide such a frameowork for words like "beauty" and "good" and "bad". Utilitarians, for example, would wholly reject your notion that there's no such thing as the objective good.

if there was a way to one-up the hilariously ridiculous butthurt in this thread - you 2 fellas managed to do that by leaps and bounds

Richard in a Box: If I didn't enjoy a book, it was not well-written to me. I may understand certain historical implications ("This book was the first non-fictional account of blah blah") but it doesn't automatically make that book good in my opinion. How then, is my opinion wrong? Because it is considered by some "experts" in a given field to be well-written? If you feel that way, that's fine, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion or make me wrong in my book.

haha, dunno dude you should like someone whose mommy called him a special snowflake a few times to often.

I mean, another question:

Have you enver read a book once and disliked it (say in high school) then re-read it later on and thought it was amazing?

Did the book itself suddenly improve in quality?

It's just a pet peeve of mine when I hear people say "That's just a movie, but THIS IS A FILM". It makes no sense if they were both shot on film.



That has nothing whatsoever to do with what medium it was recorded on.

If it was recorded on anything that can eventually be projected up onto a screen, and it has moving pictures, it's a film.

What cut-point people use to say "that's a MOVIE but this is a FILM" is frankly irrelevant to anything except their own over-inflated egos. The concept of "FILM" was invented before the digital medium was invented.... a concept doesn't cease to exist just because another thing comes into being. It changes, but it doesn't stop existing.

Did anybody else notice the continuity errors during the last battle? I'm sure I saw a number of contructicons fighting in their robot forms at the same time they formed part of Devastator on the pyramid.

TribeFan695: robsul82: TribeFan695: robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

I'm supposed to take a critic's words for gospel because he won an award 34 years ago?

You're going to kick your feet like a baby and insist Ebert's Pulitzer doesn't make him more credible than Peter Travers or Jim Ferguson? Really?

Had a chance to see it with my wife, but when I heard Kevin and Olivia...



...had walked out after half an hour, I knew it would be bad. When geeks walk out of a CGI bukkake because it's that bad, you know it's really bad.

We went to see Up, and I have to say: nice film. Would see again.

Richard in a Box: Bill Frist: Saying "I liked this film" means nothing more than you had a pleasurable enjoyment of the film.

Saying "This film is a good film" implies much more, unless you operate in some weird bubble where you think good means nothing more than your subjective expierence.

Are you telling me that you've never read a book and thought it was an important and well written book even though you personally didn't enjoy reading it that much? Or convesrtely seen a shiatty movie but enjoyed it because you were brain dead at the end of the week and just wanted to see some big explosions, even though you knew the acting, writing and directing where crappy?

If I didn't enjoy a book, it was not well-written to me. I may understand certain historical implications ("This book was the first non-fictional account of blah blah") but it doesn't automatically make that book good in my opinion. How then, is my opinion wrong? Because it is considered by some "experts" in a given field to be well-written? If you feel that way, that's fine, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion or make me wrong in my book.

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Richard in a Box: Bill Frist: Of course it doesn't automatically make him wrong, but the mere fact that said rock person exists doesn't make any opinion he has automatically "right" or automatically "as right" as anyone elses.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure that saying "I like something" when that person likes is, is actually right.

When you say your wife is beautiful, she is only beautiful to you. Objectively, she looks like a mule.

robsul82: You're going to kick your feet like a baby and insist Ebert's Pulitzer doesn't make him more credible than Peter Travers or Jim Ferguson? Really?

The Pulitzer has much less meaning to me after seeing Joe Morganstern's review of Up.

Kryptonic Silencer: If it's like the first one, I won't be wasting my money on it.

I enjoyed the first one (in that brainless, popcorn-flick, "OMG giant robots fighting WHEEEEEEEEEEEE!" way), and I'm not bothering with this one. There just seems to be too much bullshiat.

A. This thread is full of win.

B. robsul82: I didn't even know that's exactly how I felt until I read your statement. Pure awesome, thanks!

C. Not going to see Transformers 2 unless I am paid at least $100 to do so. Not sure why that's my number, but it is...

gad: Dude (and Roger) - it's a movie about Giant Sentient Robots from a Comic Book - not Shakespeare or Schindler's List.

Couldn't be more right.

Ebert is an elitst who only speaks for other film critics who have gotten so jaded that there's no way that they could ever enjoy a kid's movie...much less one about Giant Robots

/ahem

pookeywan: A. This thread is full of win.

B. robsul82: I didn't even know that's exactly how I felt until I read your statement. Pure awesome, thanks!

C. Not going to see Transformers 2 unless I am paid at least $100 to do so. Not sure why that's my number, but it is...

Which one?

Richard in a Box: Bill Frist: Saying "I liked this film" means nothing more than you had a pleasurable enjoyment of the film.

Saying "This film is a good film" implies much more, unless you operate in some weird bubble where you think good means nothing more than your subjective expierence.

Are you telling me that you've never read a book and thought it was an important and well written book even though you personally didn't enjoy reading it that much? Or convesrtely seen a shiatty movie but enjoyed it because you were brain dead at the end of the week and just wanted to see some big explosions, even though you knew the acting, writing and directing where crappy?

If I didn't enjoy a book, it was not well-written to me. I may understand certain historical implications ("This book was the first non-fictional account of blah blah") but it doesn't automatically make that book good in my opinion. How then, is my opinion wrong? Because it is considered by some "experts" in a given field to be well-written? If you feel that way, that's fine, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion or make me wrong in my book.

Your retarded child is special to you, but not to the other people that have to change his pants.

Got a guilty hankering to see Transformers 2? Go to the multiplex and pay to see a good film then simply walk into the Transformers auditorium instead. Michael Bay doesn't get your money.

TribeFan695: robsul82: You're going to kick your feet like a baby and insist Ebert's Pulitzer doesn't make him more credible than Peter Travers or Jim Ferguson? Really?

The Pulitzer has much less meaning to me after seeing Joe Morganstern's review of Up.

Well, upon review, he didn't burn Up at the stake. It sounds like he liked it a lot but he thought Carl and Russell were written thinly as characters, especially Russell. The kid can be annoying at times.

Beotch please?

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Hollywood will never learn. Next time you'll stick to my original storyboard.

this is a troll, ain't it?

I'll bite...

vanhalenfan32 Quote 2009-07-06 03:33:01 PM
this is beautiful. Not Ebert's words, but this thread & the necessity for him to write that. Its made out like there is this legion of fans attacking critics & people that don't like the Transformers movies.

700+ replies, and a significant number of them negative. "Having now absorbed all or parts of 750 responses to my complaints about "Transformers," I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that most of those writing agree with me that it is a horrible movie. After all, look where they've chosen to comment."

For every person that responds to a media event, there are 10 to 100 to 1000 people, or more, who felt the same, but didn't reply.


I must ask, what forums & venues are these responses being made on? Threads & columns from people frothing at the mouth that anyone could possibly enjoy these movies.

Huh?


So almost on a daily basis a butt-hurt farker seeks out a story or blog posting about Transformers 2 and places a snarky headline on it. A handful of people "THIS" it up a few hundred times so it appears as if they're right and have claimed some pseudo victory over the film, however a few people then show up and counter their "So we're all in agreement that Transformers 2 is terrible" world and they once again get their panties in a bunch that not everyone agrees with them. So its the fans of the movie that are obsessed with fighting for the reputation of the movie even though the ratio of snarky to positive headlines on this site are something like 1,000 to 2? It reminds me of the time on Cheers when Norm accuses someone of having no life because they sat at the bar next to him for a long period of time one day.

Ahem...


This also ties nicely with what Mr. Ebert, who is one of the better film critics, wrote here. He goes on at length about his job and the job and role of the reader "It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own." and then sort of verbally fellates his readers that agree with him while taking passive aggressive swipes at his detractors. You can't claim you don't care what people think of your opinions when you obviously do.

Did he make that claim though?


It also entertains me that critics fail to really see how pointless their job is if they discount provoking responses & flame wars. You can't claim your readers are intelligent without that, because the sole draw to your reviews would be that they're incapable of forming their own thoughts & opinions about movies and need you to tell them what to watch & think.

In the past few days, I have read reviews about "Thief", "Manhunter", and "Heat"-- all really great movies by Michael Mann. When I watched those movies, my state of mind was receptive, non-critical, experential-- I didn't want to analyze or criticize. Now that the film is done, and my impression of those films has gelled, I am interested in someone else's opinion. Someone who can bring knowledge and expertise in film to the dialogue. I believe critics-- some critics-- serve a value role.


I especially love the kid from Syracuse that included the "If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge?" thing. He unintentionally summed up exactly why sports fans have abandoned "sports writers" trying to make the counter argument.

See the above comment.


I guess my major point here is just this. Ebert's first mistake is calling Transformers 2 a film, and comparing it to opinions involving "The Godfather". The Godfather is a film, Transformers 2 is a summer movie.

So "Transformers 2" was a... music video? An audio track? A... play? How is it not a film? Uh, he doesn't compare the film to "Godfather".

It is no more a film than The Jetsons movie or Crocodile Dundee 2 were. Believe it or not, not everything made in Hollywood is with the intent of garnering a lot of praise & awards, sometimes movies are simply made to sell tickets, fast food, toys & DVD's. Michael Bay's Transformers movies are just 2 hour commercials, much like how the original cartoons were nothing but 22 minute commercials.

The animated TV series actually had a story. "Navy SEALs" was an ad for the US Navy, but it was still a movie...


Is Transformers 2 the best movie of 2009? fark no. Ebert took the cheapest way to "winning" his argument by displaying the words of idiots that actually think it is. Transformers 2 isn't as good as "Up" and hell probably isn't even as good as Indiana Jones 4.

Semantics? You just called it a movie? Isn't that the same thing as 'film'?


The point is, it was never meant to be. If anything could be more ridiculous than morons calling it the best film of 2009, its so called "intelligent people" who dedicate an retarded amount of their time tearing up a farkING MICHAEL BAY movie. The online fight equivalent to beating the crap out of a blind 2-year-old or using an entire can of gasoline to burn an ant hill.

I think Michael Bay with disagree with you, man.

BojanglesPaladin 2009-07-06 04:03:56 PM
BergZ: I thought it was a bit too political in nature because there was one point where (and I could have misheard it) but I believe they mentioned President Obama by name (instead of just saying "the President"). At one point in the movie the President's representative says that his administration is "considering all possible options" including turning Sam over to the Decepticons... I thought that was a positively despicable misrepresentation of Obama's position WRT the War on Terror.

"Interesting. I overlooked that during the movie, but you are right. Although, in fairness, I think we were meant to understand that the pencil neck power mad buerocrat was overstepping his authority.
Also the movie sucked."

I agree, and I hadn't thought of it that way. Of all the reasons to dislike the movie "because it made minor slight against Obama" is probably the worst reason.

The other observation I had about Transformers 2 had to do with Megan Fox's character. I had never noticed in movies before the concept of "Faux Feminism" until now. You can tell it because the female character is supposed to be very independent and strong, but when the critical moment comes she gets all 'girly'.

Megan's character is supposed to be a girl who "lives by her own rules". She's "just one of the guys": a real tough girl working in a motor-bike chop shop, doing cool things like welding and other non-traditional female jobs... But at the critical moment all she can do is look good, run beside Sam, and occasionally trip costing them precious seconds.

I would have expected her character to pickup an RPG (or huck a grenade) and plaster a few Decepitcons. I like movies with big explosions and I like big explosions caused by hot women with big guns. Michael Bay, I hope you're taking notes.

SheepPr0n: Ok, so I watched the movie, and even though knowing that the Critics ripped it to shreds, I did not think it was a bad, horrific piece of crap that Bay shatted out of whatever orifice you want described here.

I went in looking for a movie that had robots fighting robots and stuff blowing up with Megan Fox in there. I got what I was looking for. I could care less if Michael Bay directed the movie or not. If you were looking for boobs and booms, then great - this was the movie for you.

All of this biatching reminds me of all the trekkie fanboys screaming "CONTINUITY!" with every single Star Trek movie that has ever come out.

You know what?

It's a farking movie. I'm glad I saw it, and yes, I'll buy the movie on DVD/BluRay when it comes out.

I enjoyed it, and if you didn't? Fine - stop complaining about it here and go back to your basements. I think Admiral Kirk is waiting for you there with a basket load of tribbles and a Klingon before they knew how to do make-up.

It's a movie for drewssakes.

Just remember: You're not allowed to complain about movies. However, I am allowed to complain about you complaining about movies.

The box office numbers are produced by little kids and the parents forced to take them.

The reviews are based on critics who have seen thousands of movies.

Who do you trust?

/enjoyed watching my 6-year-old watch the movie
//hated the actual movie

Olivia Munn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Megan Fox

I went to see Transformers last week in IMAX. It was pretty entertaining. Who gives a crap what other people think anyway. But then again, I thoroughly enjoyed "Blades of Glory".
I once recommended "Naked Lunch" to one of my friends 15 years ago and he never lets me forget it.

Peter_B_Risen: Still waiting for the movie



Yeah, I'm old.

I guess I am too. I have the Force Commander figure...

robsul82: TribeFan695: robsul82: TribeFan695: robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

I'm supposed to take a critic's words for gospel because he won an award 34 years ago?

You're going to kick your feet like a baby and insist Ebert's Pulitzer doesn't make him more credible than Peter Travers or Jim Ferguson? Really?

"When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two. In the same way, if American Beauty gets four stars, then (The United States of) Leland clocks in at about two." - Roger Ebert

this goes against everything he & everyone arguing in his favor has stated. I like the guy, and do enjoy his enthusiasm for cinema. But in these cases I will not side with him, in the same way that I don't respect laws that are enforced some of the time. Car 1 - 45 in a 35, Car 2 -47 in a 35 Car 3- 36 in a 35 car 4- 43 in a 35 PULLED OVER, TICKETED.

If you establish and speak of creeds, vows, rules, etc you have to live up to them, or in the least admit when you're breaking them and also admit fault in them.

He'll write a review that I agree with next week, it will be brilliant and witty, and he'll probably follow it up with a few after that I find disputable. Thats the beauty of opinion, everyone is entitled to one and you can disagree with others and not have to try to convince them you're right.

Shadowknight: Inaditch: The term WHARRGARBL needs to be stricken from human consciousness forever.

My problem is it's rampant overuse. It was created as a response to the increasingly crazy shiat Republicans have been spouting since Obama took office. They're seemingly coming unhinged and saying weirder and weirder things. Combine that with a funny pick of a dog attacking a hose, and you have a meme.

Now we're using it to describe fanboy rage? Different animals.

Look, I know I'm late to the thread here, you're probably not going to see this, and it's totally not related to TFA, but... really? You think WHARRGARBL was born on or after January? That meme's been around since before the primaries...

swarms909: The box office numbers are produced by little kids and the parents forced to take them.

The reviews are based on critics who have seen thousands of movies.

Who do you trust?

/enjoyed watching my 6-year-old watch the movie
//hated the actual movie

Enjoy explaining why the robot was on Megan Fox's leg? Or the balls? Or the man ass? "I don't want to explain shiat" is pretty high on my list of reasons not to be responsible for children.

robsul82:
Sorry, should've specified...the first one (about Ebert's review of Knowing). Went to see it mainly based on his review, and comparisons to Dark City (one of my favorite movies). Was confused (about his praise), depressed (by the movie) and disappointed (in general) by the end of the movie.
I still respect the heck out of him, but have to wonder if he has been smoking teh crack...

Radioactive_Clown: Look at that! My good friend Rob Bricken getting props on Fark for writing a review of Transformers: RotF. Nice!

Point him to this thread, clearly a lot of farkers got a kick out of it.

vanhalenfan32: robsul82: TribeFan695: robsul82: TribeFan695: robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

I'm supposed to take a critic's words for gospel because he won an award 34 years ago?

You're going to kick your feet like a baby and insist Ebert's Pulitzer doesn't make him more credible than Peter Travers or Jim Ferguson? Really?

"When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two. In the same way, if American Beauty gets four stars, then (The United States of) Leland clocks in at about two." - Roger Ebert

this goes against everything he & everyone arguing in his favor has stated. I like the guy, and do enjoy his enthusiasm for cinema. But in these cases I will not side with him, in the same way that I don't respect laws that are enforced some of the time. Car 1 - 45 in a 35, Car 2 -47 in a 35 Car 3- 36 in a 35 car 4- 43 in a 35 PULLED OVER, TICKETED.

If you establish and speak of creeds, vows, rules, etc you have to live up to them, or in the least admit when you're breaking them and also admit fault in them.

He'll write a review that I agree with next week, it will be brilliant and witty, and he'll probably follow it up with a few after that I find disputable. Thats the beauty of opinion, everyone is entitled to one and you can disagree with others and not have to try to convince them you're right.

Did I say I agreed with everything he's said? He's a populist. He likes garbage sometimes.

Were we arguing if he's more credible than quote whores like Peter Travers? Yes, yes we were! Thanks for the input.

TheFredSavages: this is a troll, ain't it?

I'll bite...

vanhalenfan32 Quote 2009-07-06 03:33:01 PM
this is beautiful. Not Ebert's words, but this thread & the necessity for him to write that. Its made out like there is this legion of fans attacking critics & people that don't like the Transformers movies.

700+ replies, and a significant number of them negative. "Having now absorbed all or parts of 750 responses to my complaints about "Transformers," I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that most of those writing agree with me that it is a horrible movie. After all, look where they've chosen to comment."

For every person that responds to a media event, there are 10 to 100 to 1000 people, or more, who felt the same, but didn't reply.


I must ask, what forums & venues are these responses being made on? Threads & columns from people frothing at the mouth that anyone could possibly enjoy these movies.

Huh?


So almost on a daily basis a butt-hurt farker seeks out a story or blog posting about Transformers 2 and places a snarky headline on it. A handful of people "THIS" it up a few hundred times so it appears as if they're right and have claimed some pseudo victory over the film, however a few people then show up and counter their "So we're all in agreement that Transformers 2 is terrible" world and they once again get their panties in a bunch that not everyone agrees with them. So its the fans of the movie that are obsessed with fighting for the reputation of the movie even though the ratio of snarky to positive headlines on this site are something like 1,000 to 2? It reminds me of the time on Cheers when Norm accuses someone of having no life because they sat at the bar next to him for a long period of time one day.

Ahem...


This also ties nicely with what Mr. Ebert, who is one of the better film critics, wrote here. He goes on at length about his job and the job and role of the reader "It's not a critic's job to reflect box office taste. The job is to describe my reaction to a film, to account for it, and evoke it for others. The job of the reader is not to find his opinion applauded or seconded, but to evaluate another opinion against his own." and then sort of verbally fellates his readers that agree with him while taking passive aggressive swipes at his detractors. You can't claim you don't care what people think of your opinions when you obviously do.

Did he make that claim though?


It also entertains me that critics fail to really see how pointless their job is if they discount provoking responses & flame wars. You can't claim your readers are intelligent without that, because the sole draw to your reviews would be that they're incapable of forming their own thoughts & opinions about movies and need you to tell them what to watch & think.

In the past few days, I have read reviews about "Thief", "Manhunter", and "Heat"-- all really great movies by Michael Mann. When I watched those movies, my state of mind was receptive, non-critical, experential-- I didn't want to analyze or criticize. Now that the film is done, and my impression of those films has gelled, I am interested in someone else's opinion. Someone who can bring knowledge and expertise in film to the dialogue. I believe critics-- some critics-- serve a value role.


I especially love the kid from Syracuse that included the "If sports fans were like certain movie fans, they would hate sports writers, commentators and sports talk hosts for always discussing fine points, quoting statistics and bringing up games and players of the past. If all you want to do is drink beer in the sunshine and watch a ball game, why should some elitist play-by-play announcer bore you with his knowledge?" thing. He unintentionally summed up exactly why sports fans have abandoned "sports writers" trying to make the counter argument.

See the above comment.


I guess my major point here is just this. Ebert's first mistake is calling Transformers 2 a film, and comparing it to opinions involving "The Godfather". The Godfather is a film, Transformers 2 is a summer movie.

So "Transformers 2" ...

congrats, your reading comprehension is nearly 40%, and the only direction possible from here is UP!

Anyone notice that Israel is also missing in the movie?

I would watch this movie if it was about Megan Fox getting gagged and f*cked. Otherwise, meh.

pookeywan: robsul82:
Sorry, should've specified...the first one (about Ebert's review of Knowing). Went to see it mainly based on his review, and comparisons to Dark City (one of my favorite movies). Was confused (about his praise), depressed (by the movie) and disappointed (in general) by the end of the movie.
I still respect the heck out of him, but have to wonder if he has been smoking teh crack...

Yeah, doctors are prescribing weird treatments for the cancer these days. Knowing was just hideously awful.

/hey, an example already in the thread of my disagreeing with Ebert on one thing while still calling him more credible than quote whores, thanks

peachgirl: URAPNIS: I actually enjoy watching Waterworld so I don't listen to opinions about movies nor do I offer them.

I like you.

I knew you would.

lulz

Ikimasen: I read the last couple of posts as well, is it all just arguing about judgment and whether anyone is more qualified than another to judge art?

No. Mostly is is debate about whether a shiat-fest of a movie can be considered art v. whether or not it should be exempted from criticism because it is "for entertainment only".

That is pretty much all this thread is.

DamnYankees: I need to know - did Armond White like Transformers 2?

You're probably still not here, but:

Yes. Yes he did.

Conclusive proof that the movie is a turd wrapped in another turd and then deep fried in turd oil.