posted
Time to stir up some trivial, indulgent propositions for my amusement!
Today's proposition: roger ebert should be delisted from the scoring systems of review aggregate sites such as RottenTomatoes/Metacritic, and disregarded, individually, as a movie reviewer.
Roger Ebert said this of Toy Story 3: "This is a jolly, slapstick comedy, lacking the almost eerie humanity that infused the earlier “Toy Story” sagas, and happier with action and jokes than with characters and emotions. But hey, what can you expect from a movie named "Toy Story 3," especially with the humans mostly offstage?" — with this, I regard him as an ex-critic who should retire from the field.
This, of course, coming on the heels of Ebert's ridiculous controversy-stirring assessment of video games, but I consider that a different issue entirely, because Ebert's expertise has nothing to do with video games. His comments simply represent him reflexively condemning a new media of perplexing unfamiliarity (to him) to a comforting realm of not being worth his time/beneath him and his chosen works/etc. It's irrelevant because he knows feck-all about video games.
The Toy Story 3 comment is different, because its Roger Ebert being dead wrong about a movie! I have not shown that comment to a single person who has watched Toy Story 3 who has not commented something to the effect of "I don't think Ebert watched the same movie I did."
Now! Keep in mind that this is all coming from a person who had the utmost respect for Ebert's work and watched him every year at the maximum number of workshops possible at the World Affairs Conference. He is an interesting and amiable person, but he's done.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you may be overreacting. The review is still positive, there was just something in the movie that rang false to him. I sort of agree, actually. It's a very affecting movie, but the expanded cast of characters did take away a bit from the relationship we have with the existing ones. Why is it so important to you that he validate your take on the film?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(in all seriousness, despite the whole "everyone is entitled to their opinion" thing, I pretty much agree with Sam here. To say it was all about silly slaptick jokes is to ignore pretty much the entire second half of the movie. Even if you think that the movie didn't succeed at the depth and intensity it was striving for, any serious critic should at least be aware of what it was trying to do)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
also it is not important that he validate my take on the film, he just shouldn't be listed as an important critic on aggregate review sites anymore if he can be so profoundly off the mark on things such as, say, the stellar concluding act of Pixar's most notable franchise.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, if Roger Ebert weren't ill, would you have written, "done" or just voiced your disagreement?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this were a critic who was younger and healthy would you have been as likely to say he was "done" or would you have voiced your disagreement some other way - saying he is an idiot, or has no taste - something like that?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: also it is not important that he validate my take on the film, he just shouldn't be listed as an important critic on aggregate review sites anymore if he can be so profoundly off the mark on things such as, say, the stellar concluding act of Pixar's most notable franchise.
Ehem... The man has a four decade track record of notable reviews, and you think he should be delisted because he didn't like one film you have a stiffy for? Forgive me my polite laugh :maha:.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
if there was a critic who was younger and healthy and was in the same situation as Ebert in terms of the arc of their career as a critic, then yes, I would say that they are done. His medical situation is not the defining condition for this judgment on my part. If anything, it led to a worthwhile twilight writing period and some very notable essays by him.
I would say the same thing: de-list from the aggregate review sites. And if I owned a newspaper that ran him/her, I'd start talking today about moving towards unsubscribing from his movie review column.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ]Ehem... The man has a four decade track record of notable reviews, and you think he should be delisted because he didn't like one film you have a stiffy for?
:maha: :maha: nope, the toy story 3 review only acts as a seminal case and notable culmination of how increasingly erratic and out of touch he has become as a reviewer. :maha: :maha: *fits monocle back onto face*
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know you're indulging yourself, so I get the impression that you're joking...or being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but...
Really? You're at the point where you are considering cutting Roger Ebert from your sources on movies? All because of one movie? Even if you're being frivolous, it seems extreme.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What do you mean by "arc of their career?
Ebert has had a notable arc and is obviously well past his pinnacle. He has a legacy! This is different than someone who, in my opinion, wasn't ever really a great/good reviewer. I wouldn't say that someone without that arc was 'done.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I know you're indulging yourself, so I get the impression that you're joking...or being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but...
Not necessarily joking, but definitely indulgent!
quote:Really? You're at the point where you are considering cutting Roger Ebert from your sources on movies? All because of one movie? Even if you're being frivolous, it seems extreme.
to reiterate, this is not all pinned on the review for Toy Story 3. I'm just throwing it out there as the moment where my long-growing suspicions about his movie reviews finally reached a threshold where I'm all like 'okay, wait, he shouldn't be considered a top reviewer anymore'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I still go to his reviews as my primary source. I still think he's spot on. There are very few moments when I disagree with him.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Penny Arcade's take on the video game thing:
quote:Also, do we win something if we defeat him? Does he drop a good helm? Because I can't for the life of me figure out why we give a $@#& what that creature says.
posted
It's a pretty commonly referenced strip, and this is precisely the circumstance in which it is correct to reference it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Next trivial, indulgent proposition for the purpose of my own amuesment: XKCD's author should be forbidden, on threat of pain of death, from featuring women in it.
posted
How did it take you until Toy Story 3 to figure out that Roger Ebert has gone loopy? Did you just miss his Kick Ass review? Forgotten his take on the Star Wars prequel trilogy?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that ebert has a massive blind spot for technological spectacle so has sucked at reviewing sci-fi for a long time (the part in his review of The Phantom Menace where he was wishing that the characters in A New Hope spoke with the 'eloquence' of the characters in the prequel was pretty lol, as were his reviews of Matrix Reloaded and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within) but yes I did miss the Kick Ass review (wtf ebert).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC, at least in his Kick-Ass review Ebert acknowledged that he might just be getting out of touch (or something to that effect).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen Kick Ass, but I know that Ebert was not alone in that review. Given that enough people were so distracted by that point that it dampened their ability to objectively review the movie, I have to assume it's a valid one.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: IIRC, at least in his Kick-Ass review Ebert acknowledged that he might just be getting out of touch (or something to that effect).
he kind of put his review as a dilemma between having feelings and appearing out of touch, or throwing away his scruples in order to appear cool. Not really the same, and he furthermore insinuated that the film only seeks to work through the 'comic book context' and that outside of that, it sucks.
Maybe there was a decent portion of direct acknowledgement. In which case, he's right!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Ebert is fine. Armond White should be removed from every listing on earth.
--j_k
Ebert at least deserves a meta-discussion about whether or not he's gone soft in the critic-head. Armond White doesn't need that because he's always been a contrarian joke of a movie reviewer.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I did like his review of the human centipede.
Or Freddy Got Fingered. Ebert still has no problem waxing eloquent about how a worthless piece of trash smeared on film is a worthless piece of trash smeared on film.
And, as far as worthless failures and mockeries of the human endeavor go, Human Centipede is up there! In addition to being a stab at the worst schlock that the director could imagine making the central theme of a horror movie, it isn't even good at managing it. Even outside of the disgusting premise, it's boring and stupid and tedious. A boring stupid tedious film that is also disgusting and is mostly about horrific close-ups of someone's mounting horror at having to process the product of what their face has been sutured to. what a winner of a film!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pixar has a problem. Both Toy Story 3 and Up put together a single emotional set piece and "hung" the rest of the movie on it, failing to spend any more time on emotion or development.
Sure, Up was good. But all sentimentality occured in the first ten minutes of the movie. The rest of the show coasted along on the emotion of the opening scenes, leaving nothing more than rudimentary characterization. The boy? We hardly cared. The villain? Who was that again?
Toy Story 3 suffers the same problem. We only get one scene with real human development (Andy and the little girl), and the rest of the movie coasts on our familiarity with the characters. Sure, like Up the story appeals universally, but that isn't an excuse to drop character.
There are a few television directors who've really pushed the envelop recently, all advocating character over plot (Bryan Fuller, JJ Abrams, Joss Whedon), and OSC has been an advocate for years. Like the Shrek movies, the new Toy Story is a relatively hollow adventure / comedy and brings nothing new to the table.
And to stop bashing Pixar, Wall-E was outstanding.
Ebert is dead-on in his reviews. Sometimes he'll ddeviate from the herd when no one agrees (look at his G-Force review), but he generally approaches film from one of the most consistantly rational perspectives in the industry.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, Up was good. But all sentimentality occured in the first ten minutes of the movie. The rest of the show coasted along on the emotion of the opening scenes, leaving nothing more than rudimentary characterization. The boy? We hardly cared. The villain? Who was that again?
"Up" featured only 'rudimentary characterization?'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Toy Story 3 suffers the same problem. We only get one scene with real human development (Andy and the little girl), and the rest of the movie coasts on our familiarity with the characters. Sure, like Up the story appeals universally, but that isn't an excuse to drop character.
Really? You weren't remotely affected by, nor at least recognized that you supposed to be, by the grim staring death in the face in the final climax scene?
While I somewhat agree with your take on Up, I think Toy Story 3 and Up are both bold takes on the subject of death, and attempts to package that subject matter in a way that children can deal with. Up is about letting go of people you've lost. Toy Story 3 is about contemplating your own mortality. At the beginning you have Woody trying to convince everyone that there will be a tranquil afterlife in the Attic. The middle act has some characters wanting to believe in this impossibly perfect Toy Heaven and discovering its flaws, but constantly trying to flee from their impending obsolescence. Until the climax, where they finally run out of room to run and have no choice but to stare death in the face and accept it. After which they ARE granted a form of reincarnation, but which I feel they earned specifically BECAUSE of the acceptance that preceded it.
This is all in addition to the more straightforward (but no less poignant) story about the role that toys play in our lives, the ways in which people grow up and moving on, and fears of abandonment. I do agree that the first half of the movie coasts a bit "on our familiarity with the characters" as you say, but the movie has so much going on thematically and character development, even during the first half, that yes, I think failing to acknowledge it means you are not top-grade-film-critic-material.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ryoko: Now, I think they are completely irrelevant.
Now, if they were completely irrelevant, you would never see advanced critic screenings, employ critic responses in advertising, nor would people actually read the reviews, either as a postscript or (heaven forbid!) decide to go to a movie based on its critical reception. If they were in an age of increasing irrelevance, you wouldn't see the explosion in utility and purveyance of sites for aggregate review.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I do like that the aggregate reviews you reference have diluted the influence of the mainstream critics though.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. Sites that employ ace reviewers (AV Club comes to mind) have gotten excellent press and an expansion of influence vying for aggregate review slots (or in the case of RT, a 'top pick' slot)
Which means more revenue for film review slots in ms and indie alike, which meansssss....
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, Up was good. But all sentimentality occured in the first ten minutes of the movie. The rest of the show coasted along on the emotion of the opening scenes, leaving nothing more than rudimentary characterization. The boy? We hardly cared. The villain? Who was that again?
"Up" featured only 'rudimentary characterization?'
Yes. Carl and Ellie had character development at the very first of the film. That development mostly ended with Ellie's death. Carl had been developed, to an extent, but he was left rather one note -- he was broken and needed to travel, heal, and learn how to reconnect with humanity.
BUT, that was only the first few minutes. All the of the rest of the characterization was based on rudimentary stereotypes and generalities, playing on the fact that viewers already "care" about Carl, therefore they'll care about his continuing adventure. The boy, the bird, the villain -- all of the rest is as plain as punch. Why should I care about the rest of the journey???
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: [QUOTE]Really? You weren't remotely affected by, nor at least recognized that you supposed to be, by the grim staring death in the face in the final climax scene?
While I somewhat agree with your take on Up, I think Toy Story 3 and Up are both bold takes on the subject of death, and attempts to package that subject matter in a way that children can deal with . . . Toy Story 3 is about contemplating your own mortality. At the beginning you have Woody trying to convince everyone that there will be a tranquil afterlife in the Attic. The middle act has some characters wanting to believe in this impossibly perfect Toy Heaven and discovering its flaws, but constantly trying to flee from their impending obsolescence. Until the climax, where they finally run out of room to run and have no choice but to stare death in the face and accept it. After which they ARE granted a form of reincarnation, but which I feel they earned specifically BECAUSE of the acceptance that preceded it.
This is all in addition to the more straightforward (but no less poignant) story about the role that toys play in our lives, the ways in which people grow up and moving on, and fears of abandonment. I do agree that the first half of the movie coasts a bit "on our familiarity with the characters" as you say, but the movie has so much going on thematically and character development, even during the first half, that yes, I think failing to acknowledge it means you are not top-grade-film-critic-material.
To argue "going to the attic" as an child-friendly death metaphor is rediculous. Really, so they have the choice of which afterlife they choose? Woody has been selected to live, however, is this the freaking Lottery, where some of the community voluntarily give up their lives for the good of the group? This sounds like a better suicide analogy if you think about it -- "My life's purpose is over, I either escape bondage or go to the attic. . ."
And the argument about the peril in the climax is just as rediculous. It was a by-the-numbers action climax, nobody human was in danger. Did you think that an alien would be incinerated??? The only interesting part of that whole portion of the movie was the fact that Lotso DIDN'T stop the machine.
The ending was great. Like Ebert's review said, we didn't connect to the PEOPLE in the story (except for at the end). It made a weaker movie, in many ways, but I think they did a good job with the characterization in the ending.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the argument about the peril in the climax is just as rediculous. It was a by-the-numbers action climax, nobody human was in danger.
Does it make a difference whether a fictional human character or a fictional toy character was part of the action climax? What special importance is applied to the humans in the film that makes what happens to the toys somehow irrelevant to the emotional import of their role and trevails in the film? Did the film need to throw Andy onto the trash recycling line in order to create this import?
Answer: No, so you're way off base here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Connecting with the characwters in the movie was weaker because they were not the people in the film?
That is so silly. It would be like saying that what happened in wall-e was weaker because we didn't connect to the PEOPLE, only the ROBOTS.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the argument about the peril in the climax is just as rediculous. It was a by-the-numbers action climax, nobody human was in danger. Did you think that an alien would be incinerated??? The only interesting part of that whole portion of the movie was the fact that Lotso DIDN'T stop the machine.
....because nobody "human" was in danger, there was no tension? Ignoring for a moment the fact that this movie had MORE human elements in it than the previous two movies, why should it matter at all how many humans were in danger? The main characters are toys. The story is about their trials, tribulations and relationships. The humans are important only because of their relationships with the toys. Whether humans are ever in danger is irrelevant. The final scene WAS incredibly poignant and the human element was an important part of that, but Andy was not and never was the main character.
Lots of people I know, myself included, were genuinely considering the possibility that those characters were actually going to die. I didn't expect it to actually happen, but I had no idea how they were getting out and their grim acceptance had me grimly accepting along with them. If you weren't affected because you felt the filmmakers did a bad job building tension, fine, you're entitled to that. But to claim that's only because the main characters weren't "real people" is to miss the entire point of half the animated stories out there.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ]Ehem... The man has a four decade track record of notable reviews, and you think he should be delisted because he didn't like one film you have a stiffy for?
:maha: :maha: nope, the toy story 3 review only acts as a seminal case and notable culmination of how increasingly erratic and out of touch he has become as a reviewer. :maha: :maha: *fits monocle back onto face*
Mmmmyeeeeaaaasssss... well I dyoo teennd to agreee on the quality of his reviewwwsss from tyme to tyme. I dyoo in indubitably prefer Sir Graham Wilhelm Von Freidenberg III who write for the Guaaarrrdian. His reviews are ever so witty. Ever so. :Maha:
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was perusing Ebert's site, and found this Q&A note:
quote:Q. I was a little surprised by how your review of "Toy Story 3" was largely dismissive of the film as a derivative sequel, stating it is "happier with action and jokes than with characters and emotions." You say the first two films were about a boy and his toys, whereas this one leaves the toys to fend for themselves. On this point, I'd argue that there's more Andy in this film than any before. The earlier films were all about getting back to the house and facing the dangers of highways, a deranged kid, and worse in the process. Andy was rarely seen in his entirety save a few moments at the beginning and the end. Here the film follows the usual formula, yes, (toys get lost, toys get into trouble, toys find their way back home) but there is a heartbreaking coda that allows Andy to have the spotlight for the first time in the series. These ending scenes were, for me, the most emotionally involving of the series and an excellent example of a franchise that works hard to make the sequel enrich and enhance what came before it. On the topic of 3D, however, I heartily agree. (Steven Avigliano, Rockaway NJ)
A. I have to be honest with you. I fully believe if I could see the film in 2D, my opinion would deepen and improve. I realize I'm in danger of sounding like an obsessive on his topic, but I find 3D an annoyance and a distraction, and the light in the screen in invariably dimmer than it should be. The so-called third dimension is getting between me and the heart of the story.
Thought it was interesting.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
