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 🤨
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
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.
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.
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.
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?