Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I used to have a certian amount of respect for Roger Ebert. Although I disagree with lot of his reviews, I suddenly feel that he may be one of the worst movie crtiics ever, after seeing.......

THIS!
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060615/REVIEWS/60606005/1023

have you seen it?

Finally...I thought I was the only one, his reviews are becoming irrational and senseless. Roeper's walking along the same line as well.

I believe this individual wrapped it for me rather nicely:

Ebert and Roeper Shouldn't be Allowed to Rate Comic Book Movies Anymore

I'm used to Roeper showcasing his complete lack of knowledge and smarmy ignorance. Why, I recall him scoffing at the Fast and the Furious because they had those wacky nitrous oxide buttons on their cars, as if said technology doesn't exist. I remember him saying this on the Tonight Show, where Jay Leno informed him he owned three cars that possess that very feature.

However, I am NOT used to Ebert matching Roeper comment for comment in a stupefying Idiot Battle. Every dumbass comment that Roper made, Ebert would beat it with one of his own. I think maybe the diet he's on has sucked vital matter from his brain. Let's take a look at some of the reasons they disliked the Fantastic 4 movie.

"The Thing is too similar to the Hulk."

Well, both are big and strong and misunderstood, I'll grant that. But the Thing retains his intelligence and is a lovable, blue-collar type of hero, where the Hulk gets angry and smashes things until he gets sad or tired, presumably because whenever he looks down he realizes that Bruce Banner has been dressing him in purple pants. Their powers are similar but their characters are very different. Making this comparison is about as fair as saying Wonder Woman is too much like Superman.

"The Human Torch is like the Flash."

...Uh...what?? The Human Torch lights on fire, flies, and burns things. The Flash runs really, really fast. I'm not an accredited movie critic - I'm just a simple caveman -- but I fail to see the connection in any way on this one.

"The Thing is not to be confused with Swamp Thing; he's kind of like a dry, weathered Swamp Thing."

First, how the hell do you even know who Swamp Thing is, fatboy? Second, the Swamp Thing is a talking plant. You would be more likely to confuse Swamp Thing with Treebeard, for God's sake. Just because the word "thing" is in their names doesn't make them blood brothers.

"The Invisible Woman is sort of like Storm from the X-Men."

Oh sweet ****ing ****. Are you autistic?? Just because the Invisible Woman's given name is Susan Storm does NOT negate the fact that she is a white woman who can make invisible force fields and Storm is a claustrophobic black woman who controls the weather. Invisible kracka = claustrophobe darky? No. Does not compute.

"Mr. Fantastic is kind of like The Incredibles."

I'm sure what you meant to say, Roger I-get-paid-to-spout-nonsensical-tripe-on-tha-teevee Ebert, is that Mr. Fantastic is similar to Elastigirl from The Incredibles. Okay, that's very true in terms of their powers. But let's not forget that the Fantastic 4 was created in 1961, and that The Incredibles are either an homage or a ripoff of the FF comic book, depending on how you look at it.

Roeper: "Dr. Doom is kind of like the second cousin of the Silver Surfer."

What the f*ck is wrong with you?? DUURRRRR!!




http://ubersite.com/m/70838

can someone really be an idiot because of their opinions?? (with the exception of racism adn stuff)

Originally posted by Rapscallion
can someone really be an idiot because of their opinions??

I didn't say Ebert was, but if the shoe fits...

Point is he's suppose to be a world-renowned critic who has been reviewing films for the past 40 years, with that said he should know better than to say these foolish things (Roeper as well).

Originally posted by Rapscallion
can someone really be an idiot because of their opinions?? (with the exception of racism adn stuff)
Yes, they can, if their opinion is based on untrue material.

Example, if I were to say that I didn't like Ferris Bueller's Day Off because there aren't enough explosions, I would be an idiot.

If I were to say that I hated FF because the Human Torch said, "Flame on" too many times, I would be an idiot, as he only said it once.

And that review is stupid. Is he so bored of reviewing movies that he has to speak as a character in the movie now?

Originally posted by Wolfie
Yes, they can, if their opinion is based on untrue material.

Example, if I were to say that I didn't like Ferris Bueller's Day Off because there aren't enough explosions, I would be an idiot.

If I were to say that I hated FF because the Human Torch said, "Flame on" too many times, I would be an idiot, as he only said it once.

And that review is stupid. Is he so bored of reviewing movies that he has to speak as a character in the movie now?

Exactly, well said Wolfie.

There's really no excuse for Ebert & Roeper.

Ebert: "Spidey soars too quickly through the skies of Manhattan."

"Spidey swoops from great heights to street level and soars back up among the skyscrapers again with such dizzying speed that it seems less like a stunt than like a fast-forward version of a stunt."

Apparently he forgets Spider-Man can swing up to 100 MPH.

Critics are going mad these days, we all heard what Siegel did during the showing of Clerks 2 where he cursed & screamed then left half showing and now Ebert is speaking as Garfield.

Yes. It is time for a new age of movie critics.

THE KMC FORUMS MEMBERS!

woot Viva la Revolucion!

Hey at least our reviews would actually make sense and we wouldn't speak through characters from comic strips.

Yeah, I totally agree, plus Ebert gave Superman a shit review.

When TIME, Newsweek, MSN.com, Rolling Stone, Larry King, etc.. all said it was a great movie.

Time for the old fart to kick the bucket and let go.

I cant stand Ebert or any movie critic, they think they are the smartest in the world. They are so arrogent and Ebert reminds me of Jim Ross of the WWE which makes it worse.

Ebert: http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/spotlights/news/roger.jpg



Ross:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Jimross.jpg

Originally posted by Rapscallion
can someone really be an idiot because of their opinions?? (with the exception of racism adn stuff)

Yes.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yeah, I totally agree, plus Ebert gave Superman a shit review.
Was it a shit review or did you just disagree with it?

There's a difference between a bad review and one you just don't agree with. I read a review of Saw in an Us Magazine (I believe it was Us, it was some girly mag). The critic gave it two stars and said it was bad because it was too gory and gross. That is a bad review. A review of Garfield 2 that speaks in the first person of Garfield is a bad review. A review of Superman that says his acting is unconvincing is a good review, though you may not agree with it.

Originally posted by Wolfie
Yes, they can, if their opinion is based on untrue material.

Example, if I were to say that I didn't like Ferris Bueller's Day Off because there aren't enough explosions, I would be an idiot.

If I were to say that I hated FF because the Human Torch said, "Flame on" too many times, I would be an idiot, as he only said it once.

And that review is stupid. Is he so bored of reviewing movies that he has to speak as a character in the movie now?

i see your point

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
Exactly, well said Wolfie.

There's really no excuse for Ebert & Roeper.

Ebert: "Spidey soars too quickly through the skies of Manhattan."

"Spidey swoops from great heights to street level and soars back up among the skyscrapers again with such dizzying speed that it seems less like a stunt than like a fast-forward version of a stunt."

Apparently he forgets Spider-Man can swing up to 100 MPH.

Critics are going mad these days, we all heard what Siegel did during the showing of Clerks 2 where he cursed & screamed then left half showing and now Ebert is speaking as Garfield.

what happened at the showing of Clerks 2?

I do think Ebert has been slipping for a while but its his opinion and he is usually right. I still check his updates every week or before I go to see a movie. I dont agree with some of his reviews but I dont think he is an idiot.

Originally posted by Wolfie
Was it a shit review or did you just disagree with it?

There's a difference between a bad review and one you just don't agree with. I read a review of Saw in an Us Magazine (I believe it was Us, it was some girly mag). The critic gave it two stars and said it was bad because it was too gory and gross. That is a bad review. A review of Garfield 2 that speaks in the first person of Garfield is a bad review. A review of Superman that says his acting is unconvincing is a good review, though you may not agree with it.

I won't say, but let's just judge for ourselves here.

As for Superman, he's a one-trick pony. To paraphrase Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the universe." Superman doesn't need the lever or the place to stand, but as he positions himself in flight, straining to lift an airplane or a vast chunk or rock, we reflect that these activities aren't nearly as cinematic as what Batman and Spider-Man get up to. Watching Superman straining to hold a giant airliner, I'm wondering: Why does he strain? Does he have his limits? Would that new Airbus be too much for him? What about if he could stand somewhere?

Superman is vulnerable to one, and only one, substance: kryptonite. He knows this. We know this. Lex Luthor knows this. Yet he has been disabled by kryptonite in every one of the movies. Does he think Lex Luthor would pull another stunt without a supply on hand? Why doesn't he take the most elementary precautions? How can a middle-aged bald man stab the Man of Steel with kryptonite?

It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.

Originally posted by tabby999
what happened at the showing of Clerks 2?

I'll let you listen to what happened,
http://viewaskew.com/news/jul06/joel.mp3

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
I won't say, but let's just judge for ourselves here.

As for Superman, he's a one-trick pony. To paraphrase Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the universe." Superman doesn't need the lever or the place to stand, but as he positions himself in flight, straining to lift an airplane or a vast chunk or rock, we reflect that these activities aren't nearly as cinematic as what Batman and Spider-Man get up to. Watching Superman straining to hold a giant airliner, I'm wondering: Why does he strain? Does he have his limits? Would that new Airbus be too much for him? What about if he could stand somewhere?

Superman is vulnerable to one, and only one, substance: kryptonite. He knows this. We know this. Lex Luthor knows this. Yet he has been disabled by kryptonite in every one of the movies. Does he think Lex Luthor would pull another stunt without a supply on hand? Why doesn't he take the most elementary precautions? How can a middle-aged bald man stab the Man of Steel with kryptonite?

It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.


Is Ebert saying that he thinks that the kid in Superman Returns should be the kid from Spy Kids?!?! eer

Heck the kid was bad enough!

Does Ebert know anything about Superman?!? In his own review he contradicts himself.

Yeah. He was more criticizing the character of Superman rather than the movie itself.

It's difficult to review a movie if you don't like the source material. It's not the fault of anyone in the movie if Superman is a dumb idea.

I think he was criticizing the way Superman was portrayed in the film, not the actual character in the comic books. I think he is sorta of right.

My take is that an movie critic is to review movies, not source material. If he didnt like the movie because of the action scenes doesnt mean he's an idiot because he doesnt know Spider-Man's exact speed while flying the air. It means that the scene didnt work for him in the movie. And that's what his job is, to review the movie. Can you expect Ebert to know everything about anything when he reviews movies?
If

Originally posted by Wolfie
Yeah. He was more criticizing the character of Superman rather than the movie itself.


He did the exact same thing with the Fantastic Four, when they said "Dr. Doom is kind of like the second cousin of the Silver Surfer." They begin to poke fun at the comics and characters that aren't even included in the film.

Is the show version of the review or his actual writting one?

He's not attacking the actual characters in the comic book, he's attacking the bad script and bad acting in the movies about the characters.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Is the show version of the review or his actual writting one?

He's not attacking the actual characters in the comic book, he's attacking the bad script and bad acting in the movies about the characters.

The one I referred to was on television.

Not in the Fantastic Four review my friend, you have to see it before you come to this conclusion.

I don't know this guy, but I am almost positive he is an idiot for two reasons.

a) Silver Surfer ...Dr. Doom ....idiot (clear?)

and more importantly

b) he suggested a kid would be a good addition in a movie ( I know you will say, "it's jsut his opinion, it can't be wrong, it doesn't make him stupid"...and well..YOU ARE WRONG)

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet



I'll let you listen to what happened,
http://viewaskew.com/news/jul06/joel.mp3

I heard that episode of the Opie & Anthony show, it was excellent, they ripped Joel a new *******.

I never liked his review of Fight Club all those years ago, the smarmy **edit**...

Originally posted by TheFilmProphet
The one I referred to was on television.

Not in the Fantastic Four review my friend, you have to see it before you come to this conclusion.

Well, I guess his written one means nothing right?

He didnt suggest the actual kid would be better for Superman, he meant the type of character the kid is.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Well, I guess his written one means nothing right?

He didnt suggest the actual kid would be better for Superman, he meant the type of character the kid is.

Still a kid.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Well, I guess his written one means nothing right?

He didnt suggest the actual kid would be better for Superman, he meant the type of character the kid is.

They weren't the same review, the one I'm referring to featured both Ebert & Roeper.

I wasn't disputing that, but either way he did say he wanted him to be more like one of the Spy Kids which disconcerining.

It's no secret, the guy really seems to exhibit a rather hostile attitude when it comes to reviweing comic book flicks.



By this point in the review, are you growing a little restless? What am I gonna do, list names and actors and superpowers and nicknames forever?

The Fantastic Four are, in short, underwhelming. The edges kind of blur between them and other superhero teams. That's understandable. How many people could pass a test right now on who the X-Men are and what their powers are? Or would want to?

Unlike the others, who look normal except when actually exhibiting superpowers, he looks like - well, he looks like his suits would fit The Hulk, just as the Human Torch looks like The Flash, and the Invisible Woman reminds me of Storm in "X-Men."

What's more it also seems like he can't review one of them without stereotyping the characters by comparing them with others merely based on their gender or colors.

I think Ebert has a point that the Fantastic Four looks like a generic superhero movie, which it is and that the characters portrayed in the movie look and act like any other comic book character portrayed in movies.

If the movie is good, he wouldnt of said that, like his reviews of Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins.

Yes, the kid in Spy Kids is a kid. But Ebert is saying that the character emotions would of been for Superman Returns, in his opinion.

Again, I say to that, don't review a movie in which you don't like the source material. It's not Tim Story's fault if the FF aren't your favorites.

The only superhero movies a critique like that would be suitable for is original superhero movies (i.e. Darkman).

Wtf? The Human Torch is too similar to the Flash?

Are you kidding me?

Originally posted by H. S. 6
Wtf? The Human Torch is too similar to the Flash?

Are you kidding me?

They create these absurd reviews, then are confused as to why some people are upset by them. *sigh*

Originally posted by Wolfie
Again, I say to that, don't review a movie in which you don't like the source material. It's not Tim Story's fault if the FF aren't your favorites.

The only superhero movies a critique like that would be suitable for is original superhero movies (i.e. Darkman).

Wolfie has has summed it up best, can not stress these statements more.

Ebert and Roeper Shouldn't be Allowed to Rate Comic Book Movies Anymore

Originally posted by H. S. 6
Wtf? The Human Torch is too similar to the Flash?

Are you kidding me?

They create these absurd reviews, then are confused as to why some people are upset by them. *sigh*

Originally posted by Wolfie
Again, I say to that, don't review a movie in which you don't like the source material. It's not Tim Story's fault if the FF aren't your favorites.

The only superhero movies a critique like that would be suitable for is original superhero movies (i.e. Darkman).

Wolfie has has summed it up best, can not stress these statements more.

Ebert and Roeper Shouldn't be Allowed to Rate Comic Book Movies Anymore

That man cant be that stupid...

and yeah, he shouldnt be allowed to rate em anymore...

the 12 year olds in the comic section raving about wolverine would be better suited...

Apologies for the double-post earlier, PC was on the fritz.

god, give the guy a break!!! He's horribly ill and in recovery!!!

Originally posted by Wolfie
Again, I say to that, don't review a movie in which you don't like the source material. It's not Tim Story's fault if the FF aren't your favorites.

It is however Tim Story's fault for ruining the FF movie if they are your favirote characters

Either way though Ebert's review for it was crap and his reasons for it were awful

Yes. If you're a fan of the FF and hated the movie, review away!

I, personally, like the FF and like the movie.

..Fantastic Four was a horrible mess of a movie.

"Let's not fight."
"No..let's."

I mean..wtf? We already know Jessica's just there for T 'n A. I was REAL disappointed in Chikless' ( spelling someone? ) performance of Ben. The guy they got to be Reed is just..bland. About the only redeeming quality of the cast is the guy they got to play Johnny. Everything else about the film was...bad.

Oh. Ebert and Roper wouldn't know a good film if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.

I stop reading Eberts reviews after he trash Team America: World Police. He let's his own political views cloud his reviews. He lost his touch years ago.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I stop reading Eberts reviews after he trash Team America: World Police. He let's his own political views cloud his reviews. He lost his touch years ago.

That too.

However, I really lost respect for him when he gave Spider-Man 2 four stars

Seriously that movie was so overrated

I Still Respect Him, He's A Great Critic, I Mean How Many Other People In The Buissness He's In Are As Well Known And Trusted As He Is? I'm Not Saying He Nescasarilly Should Be, But You Should Give Him Props For Getting That Far, I Mean He's Said Some Stupid Things But If QT Or RR Made A Bad Movie You Wouldn't Write Them Off As Hacks, Impossibilities Aside X) , I Disagree With Him ALOT Now Days But I Still Respect Him

Originally posted by Grimm22
That too.

However, I really lost respect for him when he gave Spider-Man 2 four stars

Seriously that movie was so overrated
He called it the best superhero movie he's ever seen, right?

I liked Spidey 2 alright, but it's not even in my top ten.

He's an idiot because you disagree with him?

Yup

No, he's not. Everyone has their own opinion.

I don't think he's an idiot for calling Spider-Man 2 the best superhero movie. I just don't agree with him there, as the movie had quite a few flaws.

wtf was he thinking giving SR the bad review he did? I think his illness is getting to him.

It took me a while to find out what "SR" means.

It says here that Ebert & Roeper gave Superman Returns two thumbs up.

Originally posted by Wolfie
It took me a while to find out what "SR" means.

It says here that Ebert & Roeper gave Superman Returns two thumbs up.

Weird...

I saw the television broadcast of their review, it was two thumbs down.

That's interesting....

Correction: Richard Roeper gave the film a "marginal" thumbs up, after which Ebert gave it a thumbs down.

Superman Returns


BY ROGER EBERT / June 27, 2006


It's no fun being Superman. Your life is a lie, there's nobody you can confide in, you're in love but can't express it, and you're on call 24 hours a day. But it can be fun being in a Superman movie. The original "Superman" (1978) was an exuberance of action and humor, because Christopher Reeve could play the character straight and let us know he was kidding.

"Superman II" (1980) was just about as good, but "Superman III" (1983) was a disappointment. "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace," with Reeve, bombed in 1987, and then the series was quiet for 19 years. Now the Man of Steel is back in Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns," which, like its hero, spends a lot of time dead in the water .

This is a glum , lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating. The newsroom of the Daily Planet, filled with eccentricity and life in the earlier movies, now seems populated by corporate drones. Jimmy Olsen , the copy boy, such a brash kid, seems tamed and clueless . Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has lost her dash and pizzazz , and her fiance, Richard White (James Marsden), regards her like a deer caught in the headlights. Even the editor, Perry White (Frank Langella), comes across less like a curmudgeon, more like an efficient manager.

One problem is with the casting . Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman , and I suppose as Clark Kent, he isn't supposed to have any. Routh may have been cast because he looks a little like Reeve, but there are times when he looks more like an action figure ; were effects used to make him seem built from synthetics? We remember the chemistry between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder (Lois Lane) in the original "Superman" movie, and then observe how their counterparts are tongue-tied in this one. If they had a real romance (and they did), has it left them with nothing more than wistful looks and awkward small talk?

It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie. Clark Kent is monosyllabic , and Superman is microsyllabic. We learn Superman was away for five years on a mission to the remains of his home planet, Krypton. In the meantime, Lois got herself a boyfriend and a little son, played by Tristan Lake Leabu, who mostly stares at people like a beta version of Damien, the kid from "The Omen." Now Superman and (coincidentally) Clark have returned, Clark gets his old job, and Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is out of prison and plotting to rule the earth.

Lex's plan: use crystals from kryptonite to raise up a new continent in the mid-Atlantic and flood most of the surface of the populated world. Then he'll own all the real estate. Location, location, location. Alas, the craggy landscape he produces couldn't be loved by a mountain goat and won't be habitable for a million years, but never mind. Spacey plays Luthor as sour and sadistic ; he has no fun with the role, nor do we.

As for Superman, he's a one-trick pony . To paraphrase Archimedes: "Give me a lever and a place to stand, and I will move the universe." Superman doesn't need the lever or the place to stand, but as he positions himself in flight, straining to lift an airplane or a vast chunk or rock, we reflect that these activities aren't nearly as cinematic as what Batman and Spider-Man get up to. Watching Superman straining to hold a giant airliner, I'm wondering: Why does he strain? Does he have his limits? Would that new Airbus be too much for him? What about if he could stand somewhere?

Superman is vulnerable to one, and only one, substance: kryptonite. He knows this. We know this. Lex Luthor knows this. Yet he has been disabled by kryptonite in every one of the movies. Does he think Lex Luthor would pull another stunt without a supply on hand? Why doesn't he take the most elementary precautions? How can a middle-aged bald man stab the Man of Steel with kryptonite?

Now about Lois' kid. We know who his father is, and Lois knows, and I guess the kid knows, although he calls Richard his daddy. But why is nothing done with this character? He sends a piano flying across a room, but otherwise he just stares with big, solemn eyes, like one of those self-sufficient little brats you can't get to talk. It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.

There is I suppose a certain bottom line of competence in "Superman Returns," and superhero fans will want to see the movie just for its effects, its plot outrages and its moments of humor. But when the hero , his alter ego, his girlfriend and the villain all seem to lack any joy in being themselves, why should we feel joy at watching them?



WHAT.THE.****?!

I've highlighted this main points. For those too lazy to read it all. And WHAT the hell is up with him trying to point out classical flaws such as SUperman's vulnerability to Kryptonite. The common sense of the situation is ignored in every other superman film.WHY is Ebert so sore about this?!

Well, he doesnt like it. It's a movie, which he doesnt like it. I do agree with some of his points. It's his opinion.

If somebody made a movie about an superhero, why cant reviewers disagree with that character?

I Hate Superman And Will Most Likely Hate The Movie, I'll Pick It Up When It Comes Out At Hollywood Video meh

The people who are calling him an idiot just because they do not agree with one of his reviews are not thinking of what they're saying, which, in turn, makes them look like the idiot.


However, when you have a valid point (such as Ebert saying the Human Torch is too similar to the Flash. WTF? ), you look... how do you say? Less stupid.

I so agree with you on your first point.

But I think people are taking his point completely out of context. My opinion is that in the movie Fantastic Four, the superhero's were labelled just for thier superpowers and not the actual character. I do agree with him, because during the movie, they werent interested in portraying the character but just portraying how fast he can go. If he was portrayed as a character on his own, I dont think Ebert would of had a problem. Ebert has reviewed many of superhero movies and he has given good grades to them, but in terms of some, he didnt like. Comparing them to the Flash I think was just an litery device to make the piece enjoyable to read.

FF was bad, heck it was awful..

Still Ebert gives awful reasons on why it was a bad movie.

Especially from someone who isnt a fan of the FF and has no real reason to be critical of it in the same fashion sense which Ebert trys to do in the review, but only makes himself look like a stumbling fool

Because he compared the characters with other superhero characters?

I like Ebert, don't always agree with him, but I think he gives honest, sound reviews. Plus, more often than not, I usually feel the same way about movies. He seemed to be the only major critic who didn't think Gladiator was anything special, like myself.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Because he compared the characters with other superhero characters?

He said that Torch was too much like the Flash?!?!

One has fire powers and the other is a speedster...HOW ARE THEY SIMILAR?!?!

well to the brilliant Ebert, they both move fast.

Originally posted by Grimm22
He said that Torch was too much like the Flash?!?!

One has fire powers and the other is a speedster...HOW ARE THEY SIMILAR?!?!

They're not, but the point was that the movie characters and how they portrayed was crap. His point was that the characters portrayed in Fantastic Four were generic superhero's and the acting and the directing made them look like any other superhero. in any other generic superhero movie. Nothing special about them.

Your looking at it as an comic book comparision, while Ebert is looking at it as a movie. They'res a difference because of the acting and writing.

If Fantastic Four was like Batman Begins, we wouldnt be discussing right now.

"...he looks like - well, he looks like his suits would fit The Hulk, just as the Human Torch looks like The Flash, and the Invisible Woman reminds me of Storm in "X-Men."

Actually when read, it seems to me as if it was more of a direct comparison in their physical appearance....perhaps had he elaborated more but he failed to do so.

Originally posted by Smasandian
They're not, but the point was that the movie characters and how they portrayed was crap. His point was that the characters portrayed in Fantastic Four were generic superhero's and the acting and the directing made them look like any other superhero. in any other generic superhero movie. Nothing special about them.

Your looking at it as an comic book comparision, while Ebert is looking at it as a movie. They'res a difference because of the acting and writing.

If Fantastic Four was like Batman Begins, we wouldnt be discussing right now.

Yeah F4 was crap, I know that but his reasons for hating it were just plain stupid.

I mean he said that they talked about Super Nova every 5 seconds and they said it like twice in the entire movie

oh well, he's just old and senile, give him the boot

Maybe.

But he isnt an idiot.

Anybody that gives Texas Chainsaw Massacre a ZERO STAR rating is an IDIOT!! So, I agree, he definitely sux as a critic. lol

Oh and he proclaimed that Video Games, arent art.

Obviously the guy has never played Shadow of the Colossus

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
Anybody that gives Texas Chainsaw Massacre a ZERO STAR rating is an IDIOT!! So, I agree, he definitely sux as a critic. lol

Originally posted by Grimm22
Oh and he proclaimed that Video Games, arent art.

Obviously the guy has never played Shadow of the Colossus
Opinions.

Now, was that the original TCM or the remake he gave a bad review to? I'm sure you mean the remake, which there are numerous reasons for not liking.

I do like his view on videogames.

They're are a few games that are considered art, but most arnt.

And he isnt the only critic who said the samething.

Garfield 2 wasn't art either, but he apparently thought so o.O

Originally posted by Smasandian
I do like his view on videogames.

They're are a few games that are considered art, but most arnt.

And he isnt the only critic who said the samething.

Ebert has probobly never played a game in his life other than Pong and Pac-Man and now he thinks he can judge them?!?

Thats like if I went and saw Gigli as the first movie i've ever seen and based all movies on that.

Its crap

Did you read why he said game wasnt art, or did you just get pissed off at him because he said it?

On his site, he had a very length discussion for atleast a month about it and he give his reasons why he said it.

Hideo Kojima, the legendary creator of the Metal Gear Series, also stated that videogames are not art. Is he an idiot?
The main point behind it was that games are providing an service to the majority of the people. It's a game and it requires skill to play. Would you call baseball art? It's roughly the same thing.

Originally posted by Smasandian
It's a game and it requires skill to play. Would you call baseball art? It's roughly the same thing.

Not necessarily...it does not take up to two years and the work of numerous programmers, artists, designers, etc. to complete one game of baseball.

No, but it takes 18 batters, plus atleast 4 pitchers each team, plus all the people who created the baseball field, bats, balls, gloves, and other related baseball equipment to design this game.

What happens if one person isnt very good at Shadow Of Colussus, and doesnt get past the second boss? How is that the same as an movie, or an painting?

Or what about Madden, or MVP Baseball? They're videogames, and they try to be realistic as possible. Would you consider that art?

I would agree that textures, and facial design and other graphic related imagery is art, but as the whole videogame, I dont considered it art.

Video games can, factually, be art. Just because they all aren't is a meaningless argument. The fact that some can be art means that the medium as a whole has artistic merit, which systematically destroys the argument against Video games not being art. Video games can be art, the few that are prove this to be true.

Ebert denying that video games can be art is reminiscent to the denial of movies being art, which happened when the medium was new and young, much like how it's happened now with video games. In a century people will look back and laugh at the thought of video games not being considered a valid artistic venture by some.

Sure not all video games are art.

But hey, not all movies are art either.

I mean look at movies like xxx

Are those art? No they are just mindless action movies.

However games like Shadow and Okami are truley art

The new texas chainsaw massacre was very very scary! It would be impossible to get a ZERO star rating. And yet he gave Devils Rejects two thumbs up. Now that movie sucked ass! lol You wanna give a zero star rating???? The Life Aquatic(Bill Murray) That gets a zero star rating.

Originally posted by BackFire
Video games can, factually, be art. Just because they all aren't is a meaningless argument. The fact that some can be art means that the medium as a whole has artistic merit, which systematically destroys the argument against Video games not being art. Video games can be art, the few that are prove this to be true.

Ebert denying that video games can be art is reminiscent to the denial of movies being art, which happened when the medium was new and young, much like how it's happened now with video games. In a century people will look back and laugh at the thought of video games not being considered a valid artistic venture by some.

I just think that they're is art in videogames like I said before, but as an whole, I dont think videogames are. But when I say art, I say that the textures are art. But would you call the gameplay mechanics art?

One of the reason is that great videogames are great because of it being fun. Can you classify great art from bad art by fun?
That's why I dont think its art. To get anything from a videogame, it requires you to play for hours on end and bring up your skill of the videogame. No matter how good the textures are, or how good the colours are, if the game isnt fun, its not good. How can we distinguished the difference between good and bad?

I think it's a weak statement to say that "Video games can't/aren't art."

Games can be a way for people to express themselves, just like paintings, writings, etc.

However, video games are so much more complex that I think it's agreeable to assume that they can have more artistic value to different people. One person who plays Halo may think "That's not art! That's running around shooting aliens!" while a fan may say "But look at what was done with the story, or how this scene was coreographed, or how this level was designed to play out."

So yeah, I'd say video games are/can be art.

Originally posted by BackFire
Video games can, factually, be art. Just because they all aren't is a meaningless argument. The fact that some can be art means that the medium as a whole has artistic merit, which systematically destroys the argument against Video games not being art. Video games can be art, the few that are prove this to be true.

Ebert denying that video games can be art is reminiscent to the denial of movies being art, which happened when the medium was new and young, much like how it's happened now with video games. In a century people will look back and laugh at the thought of video games not being considered a valid artistic venture by some.

I could not agree more,

Originally posted by Smasandian
No, but it takes 18 batters, plus atleast 4 pitchers each team, plus all the people who created the baseball field, bats, balls, gloves, and other related baseball equipment to design this game.


It's weak and crude to compare the labor of one (keyword) game of baseball to one video game of today.

Originally posted by Praylu
...it does not take up to two years and the work of numerous programmers, artists, designers, etc. to complete one game of baseball.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I just think that they're is art in videogames like I said before, but as an whole, I dont think videogames are. But when I say art, I say that the textures are art. But would you call the gameplay mechanics art?

One of the reason is that great videogames are great because of it being fun. Can you classify great art from bad art by fun?
That's why I dont think its art. To get anything from a videogame, it requires you to play for hours on end and bring up your skill of the videogame. No matter how good the textures are, or how good the colours are, if the game isnt fun, its not good. How can we distinguished the difference between good and bad?

Not by their fun, but by their effect on people, and their purpose. Take the Final Fantasy games - They are generally moving and emotionally affecting on a level not usually seen in video games, they make statements about our society, and they have storylines that put most films to shame. It takes a great artist write these storylines, and great artists to create the beautiful worlds the game takes place in.

I totally agree.

But my point is still the same. Their can be art in videogames, but as an whole, its not art.

Hey Praylu, why is it crude to compare both?

When the video game itself is emotionally moving, I'd say "as a whole", it's art.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I totally agree.

But my point is still the same. Their can be art in videogames, but as an whole, its not art.

Hey Praylu, why is it crude to compare both?

If a piece of it is art, then the whole is art. If you apply the logic that different pieces of art don't comprise a whole work of art then you must apply to everything, including film, music, writing, ect. All of these are art despite the fact that not every aspect of creating the finished product counts as art, video games are no different.

Did anybody read why Ebert said this? Or people just complaing because he said it wasnt?

The reason why he said it was because videogames is all about giving the player choices thus giving up authorial control, while great literature or film or paintings do not.

Backfire, I still dont agree. Sorry. I think the creator of Metal Gear Solid said it best,
"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."
"While Kojima said that games as a whole aren't art, he did say that games do incorporate art. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

I dont agree on how people say that some games are art, and some games are not. For example, they say Shadow Of Coloussus is art, while Madden 07 isnt. How does that work? Can one painting, sculpture, novel, music be art, while another one isnt?

Originally posted by Smasandian
I totally agree.

But my point is still the same. Their can be art in videogames, but as an whole, its not art.

Hey Praylu, why is it crude to compare both?

So

The same could be said for movies, music, ect...

Not really.

Music is music. Your not directly involved with the music. The artist records what he wants you to listen too
Movies are the same, the director shoots the movie he wants you see.
Both do not involve any choice by you.
On the other hand, videogames do. Videogames are all about choice, so the decision on what to do is yours, not the programmers. Sure, they're games like Half Life 2 on where everything is linear, but unlike an movie on where you have to see it, you can pretty much do anything, like pick up an garbage bin and throw it around instead of watching the scripted sequence of Breen talking. The programmer might not want you to do that, but its a game, and the player makes that decision.

H.S.6 is right, videogames can be art in the future, but right now, I dont consider videogame as art.
To comment on his other statement about videogames of having an emotional impact and if that happens, it will be considered art, I also agree too. Whenever that might happen.

A quote from Steven Spielbergh, " think the real indicator will be when somebody confesses that they cried at level 17"

But the main question of this discussion about videogames being art/not art is people interpretation of what's art.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue.


I dont agree on how people say that some games are art, and some games are not. For example, they say Shadow Of Coloussus is art, while Madden 07 isnt. How does that work? Can one painting, sculpture, novel, music be art, while another one isnt?

That's stupid, that counts out books, comics, music AND also movies. So that's certainly not true, since we know that at least movies can be art.


And I guess Madden 07 is kind of not art in the same way that New Police Police Story isn't art...meaning, they both are but they don't have much artistic value.

Or compare this beautiful drawing to a drawing by Leonardo DaVinci....both art?

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3765/bloigenjq8.jpg
http://www.pacificviews.org/archives/Pictures/davinci.jpg

Videogames just seem to be a further step. Pictures (just one) -> Movies (many pictures in one line) -> Videogames (many pitures in many different lines)

I still dont think Madden 07 is art because the game is all about the player choosing what he wants you to play, while on the other hand, directors, painters and writers create what they want you to see or hear. All movies, paintings, music and literature are art because the viewer cant change what they want to see even if they suck, while in all videogames, the player can choose whatever he wants. Some videogames might be considered art like Killer 7, but alot games, like sandbox games, sports games, simulation games and others are all about choice, taking the power away from the artist.

Originally posted by Smasandian
I still dont think Madden 07 is art because the game is all about the player choosing what he wants you to play, while on the other hand, directors, painters and writers create what they want you to see or hear. All movies, paintings, music and literature are art because the viewer cant change what they want to see even if they suck, while in all videogames, the player can choose whatever he wants. Some videogames might be considered art like Killer 7, but alot games, like sandbox games, sports games, simulation games and others are all about choice, taking the power away from the artist.

But that's not true, you can only see what they want you to see...but on such a large scale...it's like looking at a 1 square mile picture, you can't see all of it, but it's there.

Originally posted by Smasandian
"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."
"While Kojima said that games as a whole aren't art, he did say that games do incorporate art. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

The same thing can be said for movies. Do you disagree that movies are art?


Originally posted by Smasandian
Both do not involve any choice by you.
On the other hand, videogames do. Videogames are all about choice, so the decision on what to do is yours, not the programmers. Sure, they're games like Half Life 2 on where everything is linear, but unlike an movie on where you have to see it, you can pretty much do anything, like pick up an garbage bin and throw it around instead of watching the scripted sequence of Breen talking. The programmer might not want you to do that, but its a game, and the player makes that decision.

I think you're looking at this too narrow-mindedly. If I can do something in a game, that means it was programmed in there. In other words, somebody intended to give me the option of, say, picking up a barrel and throwing it an enemy, rather than, say, punching them. Like Bardock said, video games may allow you choice, but you still do what the programmers/designers/scripters want you to do.

In this way, video games are like an advanced form of a movie; you may be able to choose what you want to do in one instance, but ultimately, the power is with the programmer (in this case, the 'artist.')

Originally posted by Smasandian
To comment on his other statement about videogames of having an emotional impact and if that happens, it will be considered art, I also agree too. Whenever that might happen.

A quote from Steven Spielbergh, " think the real indicator will be when somebody confesses that they cried at level 17"

You've never been emotionally effected or impacted while playing a game? I think you are in an extremely small minority there.

NO! Certain video games have nothing to do with the programmers or what they want you to do. The best illustration would be Fighting games where you CHOOSE how and when you fight another LIVE opponent. The best game BY FAR for this would be Super Smash Brothers for the Nintento 64(best fighting, interactive game ever) I dont have to do anything the programmers want. I can use one attack over and over or I can do a different one. The same for my opponent. That's why those games are the BEST! B/c there is no ending level, or check point, you're actually competing against someone else. ALL CHOICE.

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
NO! Certain video games have nothing to do with the programmers or what they want you to do. The best illustration would be Fighting games where you CHOOSE how and when you fight another LIVE opponent. The best game BY FAR for this would be Super Smash Brothers for the Nintento 64(best fighting, interactive game ever) I dont have to do anything the programmers want. I can use one attack over and over or I can do a different one. The same for my opponent. That's why those games are the BEST! B/c there is no ending level, or check point, you're actually competing against someone else. ALL CHOICE.

But you can punch because a programmer has allowed it. You can use the same move over and over and over because a programmer has allowed you that choice.

Originally posted by GODOFALL1
NO! Certain video games have nothing to do with the programmers or what they want you to do. The best illustration would be Fighting games where you CHOOSE how and when you fight another LIVE opponent. The best game BY FAR for this would be Super Smash Brothers for the Nintento 64(best fighting, interactive game ever) I dont have to do anything the programmers want. I can use one attack over and over or I can do a different one. The same for my opponent. That's why those games are the BEST! B/c there is no ending level, or check point, you're actually competing against someone else. ALL CHOICE. Wrong, you can only do what is part of this piece of art.

Originally posted by H. S. 6
The same thing can be said for movies. Do you disagree that movies are art?




I think you're looking at this too narrow-mindedly. If I can do something in a game, that means it was programmed in there. In other words, somebody intended to give me the option of, say, picking up a barrel and throwing it an enemy, rather than, say, punching them. Like Bardock said, video games may allow you choice, but you still do what the programmers/designers/scripters want you to do.

In this way, video games are like an advanced form of a movie; you may be able to choose what you want to do in one instance, but ultimately, the power is with the programmer (in this case, the 'artist.')



You've never been emotionally effected or impacted while playing a game? I think you are in an extremely small minority there.

I already answered that question.

I guess it's people's definition of what art is. That's pretty much all I have to say.

No I havnt been emotionally effected by videogames. Are you telling me that you have cried when somebody died in the videogame, or that the world ended? Or happy that the character (not you) beat the game? Or scared for the character when he walks into an trap?

Originally posted by Smasandian
Did anybody read why Ebert said this? Or people just complaing because he said it wasnt?

The reason why he said it was because videogames is all about giving the player choices thus giving up authorial control, while great literature or film or paintings do not.

Backfire, I still dont agree. Sorry. I think the creator of Metal Gear Solid said it best,
"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."
"While Kojima said that games as a whole aren't art, he did say that games do incorporate art. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

I dont agree on how people say that some games are art, and some games are not. For example, they say Shadow Of Coloussus is art, while Madden 07 isnt. How does that work? Can one painting, sculpture, novel, music be art, while another one isnt?

Yes, I did read why Ebert said video games aren't art. The fact that video games give players some choice means nothing, it's a pointless statement that has nothing to do with the validity of art, according to the definition. Who ever said that art can't be open ended?

Using Kojima's same reasoning, a film can't be art either. Art has nothing to do with capturing only one person, has shit to do with the definition of art. Art is an expression of feelings or ideas. Video games can be a medium to do this. Just because a video game is trying to capture numerous people doesn't mean that it's not art. Movies are also trying to capture numerous people, and try to get as many people to see the movie as possible. Makes no difference.

Bottom line - Games like Final Fantasy or Resident Evil 4 have just as much artistic merrit as any movie or painting.

Comic Book-based movies almost always suck.

The last one that I actually enjoyed was Batman Returns back in 1992. Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Christopher Walken tore it up, que no?

Blade, X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Hulk and Dare Devil all sucked.

Comic book characters belong only in comic books, NOT on the silver screen.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Comic Book-based movies almost always suck.

The last one that I actually enjoyed was Batman Returns back in 1992. Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Christopher Walken tore it up, que no?

Blade, X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Hulk and Dare Devil all sucked.

Comic book characters belong only in comic books, NOT on the silver screen.

I disagree with you on so many levels it can't be measured.

For one, simply because the transition of some characters to screen fails this is not to say none of them belong in such place.

Second, many many people would deeply disagree with a few of the films you mentioned above as having sucked including myself.

Originally posted by Praylu
I disagree with you on so many levels it can't be measured.

For one, simply because the transition of some characters to screen fails this is not to say none of them belong in such place.

Second, many many people would deeply disagree with a few of the films you mentioned above as having sucked including myself.

So you honestly believe that Hulk and Dare Devil were masterpieces????

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Comic Book-based movies almost always suck.

The last one that I actually enjoyed was Batman Returns back in 1992. Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Christopher Walken tore it up, que no?

Blade, X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Hulk and Dare Devil all sucked.

Comic book characters belong only in comic books, NOT on the silver screen.

Blade, X-Men and Batman Begins definitly did not suck.
Superman Returns and Spiderman I enjoyed, but I wouldnt call them great, but they dont dont suck either.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So you honestly believe that Hulk and Dare Devil were masterpieces????

Read my post again....

I hate the Daredevil film with a passion because of the way it was adapted.

Batman Begins however, best comic book film to date in my book.

Spider-Man & Blade were good films and I'm sure others would agree.

Definitly agree with Batman Begins.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Comic Book-based movies almost always suck.

The last one that I actually enjoyed was Batman Returns back in 1992. Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer and Christopher Walken tore it up, que no?

Blade, X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Hulk and Dare Devil all sucked.

Comic book characters belong only in comic books, NOT on the silver screen.

Dude........Sin City.

He also neglected to mention the original Superman film which was great for it's day.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Definitly agree with Batman Begins.

Indeed,

Originally posted by Smasandian
No I havnt been emotionally effected by videogames. Are you telling me that you have cried when somebody died in the videogame, or that the world ended? Or happy that the character (not you) beat the game? Or scared for the character when he walks into an trap?

You're making it too dramatic. No, I haven't cried because of an event that happened in a game, but once I've played a good game for, say, twenty hours, I'd say I get pretty wrapped up in the characters and story.


Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Comic book characters belong only in comic books, NOT on the silver screen.

That's one of the most ignorant statements I've heard on these boards. Have you seen what some of those movies made in the box office? How well they did?

Think before you say something like that.

Originally posted by Praylu
He also neglected to mention the original Superman film which was great for it's day.



Indeed,

I forgot about that one.

They're a few good comic book movies out there, but they're is a few very bad ones also.

True, as with any genre found in film.