FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Roger Ebert is done (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Roger Ebert is done
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
Ebert has always given great reviews to all of Miyazaki's films, so he can stay. I don't agree with all of his reviews or his look on video games though. (Games aren't an art? Really? Someone ship him Xenosaga 1-3 or Heavy Rain)

But the fact that he loves Miyazaki wipes all the negative out....Then again.. How can you NOT like a Miyazaki film?

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
If I had the time, I would write this game and mail it to Roger Ebert:

At first, it appears to be a simple basketball game. You control the star player, an unstoppable juggernaut of a center; even at the highest difficulties, racking up a high score is no problem at all. After each game, your endorsements and contracts are adjusted based on your performance; the resulting dollar amount is displayed between matches, and the money can be used to customize your palatial estate. You also have a "rep" score, which improves your relationship with some vendors and hurts it with others; you can choose from various dialogue options during post-game briefings to adjust your Rep as desired. You may also choose to donate as much money as you want to various charities between each game; this has a much smaller effect on your Rep, but the effects are predictable.

Halfway through the first season, with no warning at all, you suffer a catastrophic injury and are left paralyzed from the waist down. Half your endorsements instantly vanish. You can no longer use most of the items in your estate; the ones you cannot make use of are greyed-out and can no longer be selected, although you can purchase other items to replace them.

You can continue to make statements to the press to adjust your Rep (and thus keep some of your endorsements alive); each statement now costs you money, however. Instead of basketball games, you now make your money at speaking engagements, represented by dialogue trees and QTEs; because these are much harder on your body and mind than basketball used to be, you must alternate engagements with rehab sessions (played out as minigames of increasing difficulty). Your long-term investment income becomes vital to your survival; sadly, you have no control whatsoever over the performance of the market, which is generally randomized (but very slightly biased against you.)

If you do well enough with your speaking engagements, you gain access to a "social media" event that allows you to issue the equivalent of press statements without having to pay money. Once you unlock social media, you become immersed in a handful of short plotlines: people meet, get married, enjoy chatting with you. One recurring plotline, however, involves the growing popularity of soccer. It turns out that soccer is taking the country by storm, and its popularity directly affects the value of your endorsement deals and thus the amount of money you can spend on both rehab and long-term tech research into a cure for your condition. You can choose to address the popularity of soccer in a variety of ways: you can learn to appreciate it, you can keep mum, you can criticize it but remain receptive to other points of view, or you can be outrageous in your dismissal of the sport. Of all the options, the latter turns out to get you by far the most publicity; your followers and re-tweets skyrocket. None of the options have any effect whatsoever on the popularity of soccer, which continues to grow.

The game ends when you are hit by a truck; this is a purely random event, the possibility of which is triggered only once you discover social media. You are presented with a final score that is, as stated, the number of discrete usable items in your house times the number of your Twitter followers divided by the number of times you've launched the game.

Because it's all about keeping score.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
Revised theory. Fun games aren't art.

[Wink]

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
he would glance at a youtube clip of the game and know for sure that it was not art
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
That's why I'd mail it to him. There would be no YouTube gameplay video. [Smile]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
then he would complain that the exercise was of little benefit to either party due to his purposeful lack of a nintendos video-gamery con-sole. efforts to communicate that it actually goes on your computer would also fail.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Ebert has always given great reviews to all of Miyazaki's films, so he can stay. I don't agree with all of his reviews or his look on video games though.

Miyazaki is releasing a video game. Ebert's head will explode.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryoko
Member
Member # 4947

 - posted      Profile for Ryoko   Email Ryoko         Edit/Delete Post 
I find this fascinating...

How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?

Personally, I use some combination of the following:

director (whose work I like)
actor (same as above)
recommendation of a friend (whose opinion I trust)
source material (based on a favorite book, etc.)

I do remember watching Siskel and Ebert in the late 80's/early 90's, but I mostly watched in order to see an extended preview of a film I was already interested in.

I'd say that I've gotten better recommendations from my Tivo than from any critic. [Smile]

Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
"How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?"

I tend to get interested in a movie because the trailer is funny or interesting, and then use movie reviews to rule out the stinkers. One of the local newspaper reviewers has tastes in movies that are pretty compatible with mine, so I use his reviews first.

If I really think it looks good and it gets a bad review from the local critic, I look at an aggregator. If there are some positive reviews that resonate with me, I'll see the movie anyway. If the positive reviews seem like shills or like they just don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, I'll trust the general "bad movie" consensus.

Still, at some point, I'm going to watch The Happening just to see what the fuss was about.

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryoko
Member
Member # 4947

 - posted      Profile for Ryoko   Email Ryoko         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm...

quote:
One of the local newspaper reviewers has tastes in movies that are pretty compatible with mine, so I use his reviews first
I can see this as a viable option. I suppose that I just haven't found any critic I trust yet.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryoko
Member
Member # 4947

 - posted      Profile for Ryoko   Email Ryoko         Edit/Delete Post 
Just some random thoughts...

One of my favorite things is when I "discover" a film I'd never heard of previously.

It usually is some sort of independent or older film that flew under the radar.

Anyway, what I love most is that it frees me from having any expectations (high or low). I found a few of my all-time favorites this way.

I do regret not getting to see them in the theater though.

Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Ebert has always given great reviews to all of Miyazaki's films, so he can stay. I don't agree with all of his reviews or his look on video games though.

Miyazaki is releasing a video game. Ebert's head will explode.
Yep, I wonder what Ebert's thoughts will be on this. The trailer looks absolutely FANTASTIC. (The PS3 Trailer that is)

The game looks so good that I was confused at points during the trailer if I was looking at animation or if I was looking at actual gameplay. Then they showed both side by side and I realized it didn't matter; They looked the same.

I'm REALLY excited for this and I'll write Ebert and ask him to look at it when it is released.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryoko:
I find this fascinating...

How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?

Me. SO many limited release projects get out into the field these days that the only reliable field of info on what I want to check out is going to be from people who are specifically tasked with milling out the duds. There is no way I would delve into that general mess without some sort of a system of vetting.

CURRENT DAY EXAMPLE: Here is a partial list of extremely well-vetted limited release cinema currently making the rounds:

I Was Born, But...
A Prophet
45365
Winter's Bone
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Vincere
Crazy Heart
Restrepo
Mademoiselle Chambon
Ajami
The Secret of Kells
The Secret in Their Eyes

A lot of these are actually better movies than the median-quality popular release at cineplexes. Do these have much popular press/advertising? No. Do most people even really know about them? No. And they're obscure titles probably worth watching that are jammed into a sea of similarly obscure titles that are NOT worth watching. I would stab my eyes out with forks before having to waste time wading through this sea of mediocrity (Black Waters of Echo's Pond, Finding Bliss, Burzynski, Happiness Runs, etc) just to chance upon the ones that are probably worth my time!

Like, honestly, I was never going to find things like Turtles Can't Fly or The Diving Bell and the Butterfly without a critical establishment in place (that I knew how to navigate).

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?
More often I'll decide I don't want to see a movie based on reviews, but yeah, reviews do influence what I see.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryoko
Member
Member # 4947

 - posted      Profile for Ryoko   Email Ryoko         Edit/Delete Post 
I can respect that.

You seem to be thinking in terms where a critic is a champion for independent film.

And, I do understand and can appreciate that there are only so many hours in the day and that you can't watch everything.

However, I have to ask...have you ever accidentally found a film you loved that wouldn't have otherwise made it through the "critic" filter you employ?

Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see many independent films. I still use critics to filter out popular looking movies that looked somewhat interesting but apparently suck. Occasionally a trailer looks interesting enough that I see it anyway. Sometimes I end up disappointed, sometimes pleased (Treasure Planet seems universally panned and I don't understand why).

I don't use individual critics. I look at rottentomatoes/metacritic and for controversial films, look for a few good and bad reviews to get a sense of why a movie is good and bad. (Alice and Wonderland: Negative reviews said "Nothing but eye candy." Positive reviews said "Amazing eye candy!")

Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Not very often, because, like I've mentioned, I've figured out how best to navigate the current field of reviewers. I know how not to pre-bias myself out of potentially enjoying a movie because I am wary that I am 'not supposed to,' I know which full reviews I shouldn't read because the critics in question practically just spoil the entire movie for you beforehand (though these are usually great to read as a postscript), and, more importantly, I know which critics are most likely to point me to movies I will enjoy.

A site like Metacritic is extremely helpful for that because I can quickly find these reviewers' takes on a given movie, distilled into a number between 1-100, without having to read them explain the movie to me (so I can go in without being half-spoiled about what is going to happen in the movie).

Normally I can just ask my friends, but more and more frequently I'm the first to go see many movies, and they aren't going to be much help in things like limited release films.

Another way that critics help is, ironically, from not having a review. Beware the movies that they can't screen. Most movies are provided early for critic screening prior to release. When a studio specifically does not, they are playing damage control before the movie even gets to screens. This is a giant red flag.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryoko
Member
Member # 4947

 - posted      Profile for Ryoko   Email Ryoko         Edit/Delete Post 
Another factor:

One thing I recognize about myself is that my taste in film has evolved over the years.

What I loved at 15 is very different from what I loved at 25 (or 35).

How would you filter out the adolescent or old-timer critics (as the case may be)? [Smile]

Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
You can read the blurbs in metacritic to get a sense of why they say a movie is good or bad. Find one that is the sort of reason you tend to like or dislike films. Ebert, for example, didn't care much for How to Train your Dragon because he didn't care for the "flying scenes, although children probably love them." Ebert in general doesn't offer much relevance to me when choosing "children's" films. Whereas other critics specifically talk in terms of "it'll have you feeling like a kid again," which is something I like if done right.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Glenn Arnold
Member
Member # 3192

 - posted      Profile for Glenn Arnold   Email Glenn Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
Ebert's genius as a critic was in teaming with Siskel, and their chemistry together. Their great invention was the fact that the two of them would argue over a movie, even one that both of them liked or disliked, because often they both liked it or disliked it for different reasons. It was the argument that served their audience. They both knew that the purpose of criticism isn't to decide if a movie is bad or good, but to give people enough information to let them decide for themselves if they want to see it.

Before Siskel and Ebert critics knew perfectly well that part of their audience would read their review and do the opposite of their suggestion, because disagreement with a critic is a pretty reliable indicator.

Ebert still knows this.

Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
I went and saw "Grownups" this past weekend. I didn't want to see it because I had read the reviews and looked at Rotten Tomatoes. The movie had received a 10% rating on that site. My sister and wife wanted to go see it so my brother in law and I reluctantly agreed.

And I liked it. It wasn't a film that made yout think. It really had no plot. It wasn't really about anything. But I laughed through the entire thing. It was worth the $7.50 (I had coupons) for the laughs I had. I wouldn't see the movie again, but it had some really funny bits in it. It is a standard Adam Sandler movie with heart.

The Book of Eli was another film that did not get great reviews but that I still enjoyed. The twist at the end of the film was brilliant and in my opinion rivaled the twist at the end of The Sixth Sense. (Though Sixth Sense was still a better movie throughout) It included religion but did not go over the top. The fact that the bad guy wanted the bible so he could use it control the masses was a nice touch.

I guess reviews do play a part in what I watch, but if a movie catches my eye it doesn't really matter what the reviews say.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
Final straw:

Ebert only gave Eclipse two stars...

Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
You surely mean

quote:
Ebert...gave Eclipse [too many] stars...

Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The White Whale:
You surely mean

quote:
Ebert...gave Eclipse [too many] stars...

This. If I were Ebert though, I would have given it the maximum amount of stars allowed. Why? I don't want to be murdered by a mob of 13-15 year old girls.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lobo
Member
Member # 1761

 - posted      Profile for lobo           Edit/Delete Post 
I meant what I wrote and don't call me Shirley.
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post 
This game was made specifically to provide an argument that games could be art: And Everything Started to Fall
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SoaPiNuReYe
Member
Member # 9144

 - posted      Profile for SoaPiNuReYe           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Ryoko:
I find this fascinating...

How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?

Me. SO many limited release projects get out into the field these days that the only reliable field of info on what I want to check out is going to be from people who are specifically tasked with milling out the duds. There is no way I would delve into that general mess without some sort of a system of vetting.

CURRENT DAY EXAMPLE: Here is a partial list of extremely well-vetted limited release cinema currently making the rounds:

I Was Born, But...
A Prophet
45365
Winter's Bone
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Vincere
Crazy Heart
Restrepo
Mademoiselle Chambon
Ajami
The Secret of Kells
The Secret in Their Eyes

A lot of these are actually better movies than the median-quality popular release at cineplexes. Do these have much popular press/advertising? No. Do most people even really know about them? No. And they're obscure titles probably worth watching that are jammed into a sea of similarly obscure titles that are NOT worth watching. I would stab my eyes out with forks before having to waste time wading through this sea of mediocrity (Black Waters of Echo's Pond, Finding Bliss, Burzynski, Happiness Runs, etc) just to chance upon the ones that are probably worth my time!

Like, honestly, I was never going to find things like Turtles Can't Fly or The Diving Bell and the Butterfly without a critical establishment in place (that I knew how to navigate).

Agreed. And Ebert is actually one of the few reviewers I've seen who doesn't score independent films higher or lower simply because they are independent or art house. He doesn't suffer from a lot of the snobbery or pretension that a lot of other critics do. He takes films at face value and judges them on what they try to do and how well they do it. Ebert's blog is not only home to his reviews, but to what is one of the largest forums for film critique on the net. Each blog post he makes is littered with thousands upon thousands of posts all weighing in on his discussion.

Not only that, but he is on top of his game when it comes to independent cinema. He has played a huge role in boosting the directing career of Ramin Bahrani, one of the most talented filmmakers of our generation, even going so far as to call him "the new great American director" (a statement with which I wholeheartedly agree).

Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post 
He's good, not great, but definitely good.

Also, he recently admitted that doesnt know what hes talking about when it comes to games.

Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by umberhulk:
Also, he recently admitted that doesnt know what hes talking about when it comes to games.

he basically said "I'm still right, but I just shouldn't have brought it up"

Close, but not quite!

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
I actually thought the article was pretty good. He says "look, I honestly don't understand how you guys could be getting anything crazy-artistic out of this, but I admit if I'm not willing to check it out for myself I can't speak with any authority." I think that's a perfectly fair and honest way thing to say.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
I have to confess that while I still think Ebert has some interesting things to say, I increasingly find many of his reviews rambling and without focus. I also thought his comments regarding video games were asinine, but that's quite beside the point; he's entitled to his opinion. I've started reading whole paragraphs which make me say, "Well, that was interesting; how does it relate in any way to the movie you're reviewing?"

I also felt that while his review of "Kick Ass" was subjective but honest, his review of "Death at a Funeral" in the same week seemed exaggeratedly positive in almost a sort of rebound reaction. And while public opinion isn't necessarily a perfect arbiter of anything (helloooo, Transformers) I found it a little unsettling that his rating and his readers' rating of both Kick Ass and Funeral were essentially inverted.

I guess I sort of agree with Samp's original thesis. As I've said, I still think he has interesting things to say, but I would never, ever go or not go to a movie on the basis of his review alone.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
I actually thought the article was pretty good. He says "look, I honestly don't understand how you guys could be getting anything crazy-artistic out of this, but I admit if I'm not willing to check it out for myself I can't speak with any authority." I think that's a perfectly fair and honest way thing to say.

Except that he prefaces it all with "But I still think I'm right".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see why that's a bad thing, Porter. Surely he's entitled to still think he's right, as long as he's not arguing that his rightness is weighted with any special authority.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
uhhuh, he straight up trollin' now

quote:
If they had their choice, 63.1% of people would value "a great video game" over Huckleberry Finn. That's the result of a completely unscientific survey I conducted in two places: Twitter, and my recent blog about video games.

...

For these and other reasons, choosing Huckleberry Finn over "a great video game" was a no-brainer for me.

...

But no, no, I am not re-opening the debate about video games. That's over and done with. My previous entry was my last word.

...

I don't know who voted in my little poll, and I don't know why they voted the way they did. All said to that first reader some weeks ago: "Show me a man who prefers a video game to Huckleberry Finn, and I'll show you a fool."


Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The White Whale
Member
Member # 6594

 - posted      Profile for The White Whale           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, his newest post is on another topic. You clipped that part of your quote:

quote:
But no, no, I am not re-opening the debate about video games. That's over and done with. My previous entry was my last word. I'm beginning a discussion about Huckleberry Finn -- and reading.
So he basically said: I still think video games are crap. I still love Huck Finn. I don't want to debate this anymore, but I do want to share with you why I love Huck Finn...
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't want to debate this anymore, but everyone who voted in my little poll against huckleberry finn is a fool. Just FYI.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 8624

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte         Edit/Delete Post 
While I don't want to talk about it, I believe there used to be a large number of intellectual snobs who felt that movies could not be art.

The best argument of theirs I saw was about how movies were such a collaborative effort that being "art" was impossible.

They remind me a lot of Ebert's view on video games, oddly...

Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryoko
Member
Member # 4947

 - posted      Profile for Ryoko   Email Ryoko         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sociologists have sometimes referred to the vast amounts of free work carried out on social networking sites as "digital sharecropping" because of the low rewards, but such thinking fails to explain the phenomenon, Shirky said.

"On that basis, Lego is exploiting children by making them build the toys before they can play with them. That's ridiculous of course -- the process of creating is the entertainment. It's the same with review sites," he said.

Super Reviewers article

An interesting article that made me think of this thread.

Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shmuel
Member
Member # 7586

 - posted      Profile for Shmuel   Email Shmuel         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
you.... do know Ebert is ill, right?

This may be a definition of "ill" I'm not acquainted with. I know that he's missing most of his lower jaw, can't speak, and gets his nutrition from a feeding tube, but all things considered I gather he's in pretty good health.

(He's also doing some of his best work these days, I think.)

Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tatiana
Member
Member # 6776

 - posted      Profile for Tatiana   Email Tatiana         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah, I haven't seen TS3 yet but I recently saw Kick-Ass at the dollar movie and walked out after the dude popped in the microwave. It was totally disgusting in a gratuitous and pointlessly stupid way, I thought. So I give Ebert kudos for even watching the whole thing! I totally want my dollar back, and even more, those 15 minutes. Ew.

It sort of sickens me that it got 8 of 10 stars from IMDB viewers. I worry sometimes about stuff like that, about what people in general seem to enjoy and how low their tastes are.

Anyway, I trust Ebert from 30 plus years of mostly really good reviews.

Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FoolishTook
Member
Member # 5358

 - posted      Profile for FoolishTook   Email FoolishTook         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How many of you actually decide to see a film based on a critic's review?
I usually use critical reviews if I'm unfamiliar with the movie and unsure whether to pop it into my Netflix cue or not.

I don't base my theater visits on critical reviews, however. I only visit the theater to watch zombie movies, book adaptations (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc), or anything directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

If friends recommend a film I never intended to see, along with the critics, and the populace in general, I may head to the theater to watch it. Dark Knight was one of those films. (I still haven't decided whether I want to bother with Inception or not at this point.)

Normally I agree with the critics, but sometimes I don't.

I didn't like:

Shakespeare in Love
Chicago
(I haven't been thrilled with the recent crop of critically acclaimed films from 2009/2010 either.)

But I liked:

Doom
The Happening

As for Ebert, he's hit and miss for me. Sometimes his opinions are dead on. Sometimes I wonder if he even watched the right movie.

Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2