The Energon Pub

I think Eberts days are numbered and he knows it. Though in general, i think the
"profesional critic" is going the way of the Do-Do bird anyhow. I have yet to see any critic make or break a movie in terms of profit or overall success. People are going to see what they want to see. Thats a fact. One critcs review is not going to sway people. I would even go as far as saying that them liking some movies might discourge some as it seems a majority of the movies they claim are great do terrible at the box office.

5150 Cruiser wrote:I think Eberts days are numbered and he knows it. Though in general, i think the
"profesional critic" is going the way of the Do-Do bird anyhow. I have yet to see any critic make or break a movie in terms of profit or overall success. People are going to see what they want to see. Thats a fact. One critcs review is not going to sway people. I would even go as far as saying that them liking some movies might discourge some as it seems a majority of the movies they claim are great do terrible at the box office.

It's more than critics attitudes toward their readers that is killing professional criticism. When it comes to something that's viewed en masse like a movie those viewers have the first say. One tweet, one e-mail, one text message and before you know it the word is out. While Ebert and company are writing their articles those who've already seen it have told everyone they know whether it's good or bad. Critics may cause minor influence with their articles, but overall it's these first day viewers who's opinions carry the most weight in this age of social networking.

Information is merely easier to obtain from the voices of people we know nowadays. This is why you rarely see unnecessary sequels in theaters (like the Police Academy's later films) because a film will suffer from it's poor quality the very first night after the public as spoken across the internet. We're seeing the twilight of the age of professional film criticsm and the dawn of an era were the people's word is final, and social networking is dealing the killing blow.

5150 Cruiser wrote:I think Eberts days are numbered and he knows it. Though in general, i think the
"profesional critic" is going the way of the Do-Do bird anyhow. I have yet to see any critic make or break a movie in terms of profit or overall success. People are going to see what they want to see. Thats a fact. One critcs review is not going to sway people. I would even go as far as saying that them liking some movies might discourge some as it seems a majority of the movies they claim are great do terrible at the box office.

Same here, critics have very little , if any at all in the success or failure of a movie. It usually comes down with either the people loved the source materil (book, comic whatever) or they really fancied a well put together trailer. Sometimes, not often, it's just the actor that brings in the masses.

With me, some of it is source material, and most of it's because of a well packaged trailer. I saw Transformers trailer, and right away, I'm going to see that. I saw the trailer of the Dark Knight, have to see that (though, I think it's just an above average superhero movie, nothing to cry home about) but I saw the trailer to The Green Lantern. Eh, I'm going to skip that.

Critics panned Green lantern , and I saw last night. It's a decent film, but I suppose as a long time comic fan I caught everything that came across the plate. May be they needed more explanation than I did. I look forward to it getting a sequel.

Iamwarhorse wrote: Same here, critics have very little , if any at all in the success or failure of a movie. It usually comes down with either the people loved the source materil (book, comic whatever) or they really fancied a well put together trailer. Sometimes, not often, it's just the actor that brings in the masses.

With me, some of it is source material, and most of it's because of a well packaged trailer. I saw Transformers trailer, and right away, I'm going to see that. I saw the trailer of the Dark Knight, have to see that (though, I think it's just an above average superhero movie, nothing to cry home about) but I saw the trailer to The Green Lantern. Eh, I'm going to skip that.

That's how i am as well. After seeing the preview for the Green Lantern, i have zero interst in seeing it. Unless some frineds see it and they tell me Michelle Marsh and Lucy Pinder have a topless pillow fight, I'll wait to catch it on HBO. It just doesn't apeal to me at all.

Grendel wrote:never paid much attention to Ebert, he hates the movies I like, talks down about people who might like them, and rants about how videogames (wich he knows little about) can never be art.


really just listen to Nostalgia Critic, even if I don't agree with the review, at least I'm entertained.


and not like Ebert's likely to sing 'duck tits' in any of his reviews

The Nostalgia Critic is probably the only critic I respect. Above everything else he's fair, even when a movie is really bad he acknowledges whats good about it. He never attacks anyone with a different opinion and will openly admit when he screws something up. He's far more professional than Ebert.

Capt.Failure wrote:"Its primary flaw is that it's not critical. It is a celebration of an idiotic lifestyle, and I don't think it knows it. If you want to get in a car and drive to California, fine. So do I. So did Jack Kerouac. But if your first stop involves a rumble at a "Star Trek" convention in Iowa, dude, beam your ass down to Route 66."
-Roger Ebert on fanbases in general, mid-review of Fanboys

I wasn't exactly a fan of Ebert after what he said about ROTF (sure it wasn't a great movie, but he has no right to say that anyone who thinks it is is wrong; it's opinion, not fact), but the above quote calling all fans of anything "idiots" makes me kind of hate him.

I enjoyed the movies, and the critics can't change that. When critics call us "unevolved" for liking a certain movie, I think it's gone too far. They're supposed to review the movie, not the fans.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Grendel wrote:never paid much attention to Ebert, he hates the movies I like, talks down about people who might like them, and rants about how videogames (wich he knows little about) can never be art.


really just listen to Nostalgia Critic, even if I don't agree with the review, at least I'm entertained.


and not like Ebert's likely to sing 'duck tits' in any of his reviews

The Nostalgia Critic is probably the only critic I respect. Above everything else he's fair, even when a movie is really bad he acknowledges whats good about it. He never attacks anyone with a different opinion and will openly admit when he screws something up. He's far more professional than Ebert.

Which is funny, because he's NOT EVEN PROFESSIONAL... I love him, as well as Todd in the Shadows (look him up) but they never attacked people's personal opinions...well, Todd said some things about Beiber's fans, but he was joking...

Professional critics, whining with a paycheck.

RhA wrote:Professional critics, whining with a paycheck.

Kind of like politicians, huh? Probably explains alot. I always wondered, would we ever know if a studio is paying the popular critics to either give something a thumbs up or down, the way lobbyists pay the politicians to make bills in their favor?

Iamwarhorse wrote:

RhA wrote:Professional critics, whining with a paycheck.

Kind of like politicians, huh? Probably explains alot. I always wondered, would we ever know if a studio is paying the popular critics to either give something a thumbs up or down, the way lobbyists pay the politicians to make bills in their favor?

I dunno. But that would make a GREAT plot for a movie.

Afterwards, we'll pay someone to rip on it.

5150 Cruiser wrote:

Iamwarhorse wrote: Same here, critics have very little , if any at all in the success or failure of a movie. It usually comes down with either the people loved the source materil (book, comic whatever) or they really fancied a well put together trailer. Sometimes, not often, it's just the actor that brings in the masses.

With me, some of it is source material, and most of it's because of a well packaged trailer. I saw Transformers trailer, and right away, I'm going to see that. I saw the trailer of the Dark Knight, have to see that (though, I think it's just an above average superhero movie, nothing to cry home about) but I saw the trailer to The Green Lantern. Eh, I'm going to skip that.

That's how i am as well. After seeing the preview for the Green Lantern, i have zero interst in seeing it. Unless some frineds see it and they tell me Michelle Marsh and Lucy Pinder have a topless pillow fight, I'll wait to catch it on HBO. It just doesn't apeal to me at all.

woah when did lucy and michelle hit America !

5150 Cruiser wrote:I think Eberts days are numbered and he knows it. Though in general, i think the
"profesional critic" is going the way of the Do-Do bird anyhow. I have yet to see any critic make or break a movie in terms of profit or overall success. People are going to see what they want to see. Thats a fact. One critcs review is not going to sway people. I would even go as far as saying that them liking some movies might discourge some as it seems a majority of the movies they claim are great do terrible at the box office.

i agree with some of your saying, certainly most big budget blockbusters will not fail or succeed on the word of reviewers, however to say its a dead source ignores a number of factors.

Ebert is on a slippery slope, in terms of his writing, his attack on fandom, whilst the sentiment may not be that out there, his approach negated any merits that could be made, and it was embarrassing

In the examples below the merits and demerits of the movies are not important, they are only as serving as examples. When i refer to reviewers im not referring to internet reviews, but mainly print media.

- blockbusters dont need good reviews on the whole. the marketing campaign, numerous trailers etc are a more than effective tool for grasping an audience. A heavily marketed movie with an already established fan base like TF is not going to struggle due to some reviewers. I myself went to see ROTF despite one star reviews from critics i would respect, because im a fan. just like i will go to dotm, regardless of reviews.

- However low budget movies do need reviewers. Break out hits, or pieces that dont have large marketing campaigns can live or die by positive reviews. Arthouse movies, or indie flicks, are not going to have multimedia campaigns, they get by because they receive critical campaign

- The swinging voter, the sitter on the fence may rely on reviewers to sway them one way or the other. For me there are movies i may not wish to see, examples being thor and gone baby gone. thor because i thought it would be mystical madness nonsense, GBG because it was directed by Affleck and his career was less than stellar at the time. Favourable reviews swayed me to see the movies, and i would have missed out otherwise.

- Critically acclaimed movies which dont make bug bucks can help careers. Actors or directors who appear in movies which make modest grosses, can build a career if the movies are well received. For example Moon, a movie i think is amazing, just about made its budget and some change back. However because the movie was well received, duncan jones now has a blossoming hollywood career, and for fans of intelligent sci fi thats something to be hopeful for.

- Resurrection of Movies. Some movies dont make it big first time around. Its A wonderful Life, Shawshank Redemption, Fight Club for example. these movies all received good reviews and over time, criticial acclaim translated into success, both critically and commercially. Same thing works with TV, the wire, arrested development, etc all had laughable viewer figures. So word of mouth was non-existent as such. here reviews helped spread the word, led to large dvd sales, and introduced a lot of people to some of the finest shows around.

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

shamone wrote:Transformers was a movie which was not a classic, was flawed and i didnt like it, however some people may find it enjoyable, but those people who believe its the greatest movie ever (in purely artistic terms) may not have the experience or the knowledge to accurately judge the place transformers deserves in the pantheon of cinema history, whereas I do.

So, what? Knowledge determines if you find something entertaining, now?

Why should it matter if you're knowledgeable to "accurately" judge a movie? If you like something, you like it.

which is exactly the point im making.

you can enjoy the movie, you can say it was great fun, but if you think its the greatest movie of all tim, then you ahve to accept that others will question that. It might be to you (and thats all thats important to you) but people will point out that you would need to see a lot of movies to knwow hat is the best.

Your logic is flawed I'm afraid. There is absolutely nothing wrong with finding Transformers the best no matter what you've seen over the years. If Sly where to get more film viewing experience and change his mind then there's nothing wrong with that. But who are you to say he can't find it his all time favorite film? You are not the judge of that, you have no place to define greatness for anyone. If anything, you've just proven yourself to be no better than Ebert.

you cannot say something is the greatest of all time, if you have a narrow experience of something which has a broad spectrum. i mean you can say it, but it wont be taken all that serious, experience counts for a lot

And personal opinion counts for a hell of a lot more. I've eaten alot of very fancy, exotic food from all over the world in my years, including some things I never dreamed I would be able to stomach that turned out to be really good, excellent even. I'd go as far as to call myself a bit of a snob on the subject. But you know what? Nothing beats a hamburger in my eyes. Ab-so-frakin'-lutely nothing, ever, anywhere, any day.

And that right there is were your arguement utterly fails. Sure, there's experience involved in matters of taste. But what you love personally regardless of experience is what matters most. And you have no right to tell anyone they are wrong for what is their favorite, no matter their experience.

For the third time in this thread, I have to politely request that you show me the respect to read what i wrote, before you comment on what i write. Now if you would be so kind please highlight the exact quote where i said someone was wrong for what was their favourite.


what i did say was that someones opinion on what the greatest movie of all time is depends on their experience and knowledge.

If someone has watched one movie, ergo that movie is the greatest movie they have ever seen. Its also the worst movie they have ever seen.

if someone watches three movies, then there is a 33% chance that the movie is the greatest, worst, or 2nd best movie they have seen

Repeat ad nauseum as your viewing experience grows !

shamone wrote:you cannot say something is the greatest of all time, if you have a narrow experience of something which has a broad spectrum. i mean you can say it, but it wont be taken all that serious, experience counts for a lot

Maybe I should reword my response to this to be more in depth. To laugh off someone's choice of "favorite" due to lack of experience is a very pretentious thing to do. You seem to forget that not everyone started as experienced as you, and to treat that as a flaw I'm afraid is at it's best just plain wrong. If someone likes something "unfavorable" due to lack of experience then the best course of action isn't to ignore their opinion, but to maybe suggest things along the lines of what they enjoy to broaden their taste.

Say some kid likes the Transformers films, but it's the only film he's seen. Why not recommend something considered classic sci-fi but still focusing on action like Star Wars, then more thought provoking or cerebral things like Blade Runner and then finally something like 2001? Inexperience isn't a bad thing but rather an asset if you remember that you can set someone on the right course before tossing them aside as not worth your time. And if they enjoy those things but still find Transformers and RotF their favorite films, then that's fine too.

I should make sure my brain is caffinated before I post next time.

Capt Failure and Shamone, can't you two just stop attacking each other on the boards. Good grief, the way you two are, I would swear you're married in real life. Are you????????

Iamwarhorse wrote:Capt Failure and Shamone, can't you two just stop attacking each other on the boards. Good grief, the way you two are, I would swear you're married in real life. Are you????????

While I do swing that way I'm sad to say I'm taken, by someone with impecible taste I might add.

Maybe in a previous life. Let me just say, I mostly side with you Capt Failure, but damn, you and Shamone turn the Transformers board into The Honeymooner's Board.

Iamwarhorse wrote:Maybe in a previous life. Let me just say, I mostly side with you Capt Failure, but damn, you and Shamone turn the Transformers board into The Honeymooner's Board.

Except I don't use space travel as a metaphor for beating my wife.

Or, should I say Moonlighting.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Iamwarhorse wrote:Maybe in a previous life. Let me just say, I mostly side with you Capt Failure, but damn, you and Shamone turn the Transformers board into The Honeymooner's Board.

Except I don't use space travel as a metaphor for beating my wife.

Well that just gives a whole new meaning to Dark of the moon haha.

Iamwarhorse wrote:Or, should I say Moonlighting.

more like sid and nancy

Capt.Failure wrote:

shamone wrote:you cannot say something is the greatest of all time, if you have a narrow experience of something which has a broad spectrum. i mean you can say it, but it wont be taken all that serious, experience counts for a lot

Maybe I should reword my response to this to be more in depth. To laugh off someone's choice of "favorite" due to lack of experience is a very pretentious thing to do. You seem to forget that not everyone started as experienced as you, and to treat that as a flaw I'm afraid is at it's best just plain wrong. If someone likes something "unfavorable" due to lack of experience then the best course of action isn't to ignore their opinion, but to maybe suggest things along the lines of what they enjoy to broaden their taste.

Say some kid likes the Transformers films, but it's the only film he's seen. Why not recommend something considered classic sci-fi but still focusing on action like Star Wars, then more thought provoking or cerebral things like Blade Runner and then finally something like 2001? Inexperience isn't a bad thing but rather an asset if you remember that you can set someone on the right course before tossing them aside as not worth your time. And if they enjoy those things but still find Transformers and RotF their favorite films, then that's fine too.

I should make sure my brain is caffinated before I post next time.

Again, fourth time now, where did i laugh at his choice of favourite movie. I said it would be questionable to call it the greatest movie ever made, as opposed to saying its his favourite movie. huge big difference there. I acknowledge that some of my favourite movies are not the greatest movies ever made. That doesnt make the movies i like the greatest movies ever, because i like them, but it also doesnt mean they arent enjoyable and fun, and have personal meaning to me (thats what ebert forgot)

Look at the lists below. Critical acclaim and commercial success, rarely if ever occur. Im not saying the first list is definitive, but its a good indication of what make a movie the greatest

top ten movies from BFI

1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
2. The Godfather and The Godfather part II (Coppola)
3. 8 1/2 (Fellini)
4. Lawrence of Arabia (Lean)
5. Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick)
6. Bicycle Thieves (De Sica)
6. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
6. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
9. Rashomon (Kurosawa)
9. La Règle du jeu (Renoir)
9. Seven Samurai

Top ten grossing movies

1. Avatar (2009) $2,781,505,847
2. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
3. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $1,129,219,252
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $1,065,896,541
5. Toy Story 3 (2010) $1,062,984,497
6. Alice in Wonderland (2010) $1,023,285,206
7. The Dark Knight (2008) $1,001,921,825
8. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) $968,657,891
9. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $958,404,152
10. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010) $946,080,434

Every movie gets butchered one way or another by somebody or someone else. Critics are never happy w/ what is given. People are still pissed the movies aren't using G1 styled characters.

I've heard people b@#$@% about GI Joe, Transformers, the superhero movies. Any movie made from a cartoon or comic has to have some differences in storyline and characterization or you get a story that's already been told. Been there, done that type thing (okay, I know, all movies are been there, done that already but it's beside the point). It's my opinion you have to disconnect the relationship between the movie and cartoon or comic in order to truly enjoy the live-action.

I'm fired up about all three live-action Transformers. I'm fired up about GI Joe (hopefully another one is coming). I'm excited about the X-men, Green Lantern, Batman...etc, etc. I hope someday they do a movie that features Justice League [of America] w/ Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and all the others. And I don't give a rat's @$$ whether it's comic or cartoon accurate.