The Energon Pub

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Prime Riblet wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:We hating critics in general here or just critics of ROTF? You can't watch something and not form an opinion..unless you're dead...or braindead.

It is ok for an critic to form an opinion, but it is not ok when a critic tries to cram his opinions down peoples' throats as if they are fact. I am speaking mostly about Roger Ebert. That bastard hasn't had anyone willing to stand up to him since Gene Siskel died.

True, they were a great team because they kept each other in check. Now Ebert's ego is so out of control he calls people who disagree with him unevolved.

While all of that is true, Ebert is a critic. His job is to critique things. Sexfighter's right, you can't view anything without forming an opinion of it, and critics of films or music or literature or whatever, we've decided that their opinions are valued enough that people listen to them. And everyone does, even if someone's saying that Ebert's a jerk, obviously they've listened to enough of Ebert's ideas to form that opinion.
Admittedly, my memory is fuzzy as to what he said about ROTF. I remember reading a thing in the Sun Times I think it was where he pretty much shared my thoughts on the movie, about it being loud and dizzying and confusing, not that fans of it are morons or whatever. But I do recall there being an uproar over his opinion and at the time I figured it was that we were mad at critics in general. But over time, it has become clearer and clearer that what people are mad at are critics of ROTF and/or Michael Bay. Ok, was Ebert out of line, definately. I can't say that calling someone who likes ROTF an imbecile is polite or justifiable (and, find my post where I say that, if you're going to contest that, please) but after all, he's a critic, and it's his job (for whatever reason) to critique. Why is he 'better suited' to do so than others, I don't know. But by forming an opinion we automatically critique what falls outside of the favorable in our opinions, so we're all critics really.

Dagon wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Prime Riblet wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:We hating critics in general here or just critics of ROTF? You can't watch something and not form an opinion..unless you're dead...or braindead.

It is ok for an critic to form an opinion, but it is not ok when a critic tries to cram his opinions down peoples' throats as if they are fact. I am speaking mostly about Roger Ebert. That bastard hasn't had anyone willing to stand up to him since Gene Siskel died.

True, they were a great team because they kept each other in check. Now Ebert's ego is so out of control he calls people who disagree with him unevolved.

While all of that is true, Ebert is a critic. His job is to critique things. Sexfighter's right, you can't view anything without forming an opinion of it, and critics of films or music or literature or whatever, we've decided that their opinions are valued enough that people listen to them. And everyone does, even if someone's saying that Ebert's a jerk, obviously they've listened to enough of Ebert's ideas to form that opinion.
Admittedly, my memory is fuzzy as to what he said about ROTF. I remember reading a thing in the Sun Times I think it was where he pretty much shared my thoughts on the movie, about it being loud and dizzying and confusing, not that fans of it are morons or whatever. But I do recall there being an uproar over his opinion and at the time I figured it was that we were mad at critics in general. But over time, it has become clearer and clearer that what people are mad at are critics of ROTF and/or Michael Bay. Ok, was Ebert out of line, definately. I can't say that calling someone who likes ROTF an imbecile is polite or justifiable (and, find my post where I say that, if you're going to contest that, please) but after all, he's a critic, and it's his job (for whatever reason) to critique. Why is he 'better suited' to do so than others, I don't know. But by forming an opinion we automatically critique what falls outside of the favorable in our opinions, so we're all critics really.

Everyone hears his opinion, but that doesn't me anyone values it. It seems he can't handle the masses disagreeing with him. If he's going to be a "professional" critic he needs to be able to handle people criticizing him, rather than pretending he's the only one with a valid opinion.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Dagon wrote:

Evil_the_Nub wrote:

Prime Riblet wrote:

SEXFIGHTER wrote:We hating critics in general

While all of that is true, Ebert is a critic. His job is to critique things. Sexfighter's right, you can't view anything without forming an opinion of it, and critics of films or music or literature or whatever, we've decided that their opinions are valued enough that people listen to them. And everyone does, even if someone's saying that Ebert's a jerk, obviously they've listened to enough of Ebert's ideas to form that opinion.
Admittedly, my memory is fuzzy as to what he said about ROTF. I remember reading a thing in the Sun Times I think it was where he pretty much shared my thoughts on the movie, about it being loud and dizzying and confusing, not that fans of it are morons or whatever. But I do recall there being an uproar over his opinion and at the time I figured it was that we were mad at critics in general. But over time, it has become clearer and clearer that what people are mad at are critics of ROTF and/or Michael Bay. Ok, was Ebert out of line, definately. I can't say that calling someone who likes ROTF an imbecile is polite or justifiable (and, find my post where I say that, if you're going to contest that, please) but after all, he's a critic, and it's his job (for whatever reason) to critique. Why is he 'better suited' to do so than others, I don't know. But by forming an opinion we automatically critique what falls outside of the favorable in our opinions, so we're all critics really.

Everyone hears his opinion, but that doesn't me anyone values it. It seems he can't handle the masses disagreeing with him. If he's going to be a "professional" critic he needs to be able to handle people criticizing him, rather than pretending he's the only one with a valid opinion.

I get what you, and everyone else, is saying on this matter, honestly I do. But the unfortuante and messy counterside of this arguement is that had Ebert raved about ROTF, few people would be saying "Oh, what does he know? He's only a critic!" Had he loved it, the general ROTF fan concensus would most likely be that ROTF was acclaimed by a critic and so the nay-sayers have no legitemate reason to knock the movie.
I completely agree with you Evil, honestly I do. Ebert has become a sort of jerk. I have a hard time criticizing him as a human being, and he's had some health problems and such, so I don't feel comfortable chastising him or saying super negative things, but that's only me, and I'm not being judgmental of any one who is doing that.

I'm not a fan of Eberts', all I'm doing is stating my opinion here. And while I'm not knocking ROTF in gerenal or its fans in specific, had critical reviews gushed over the film, the fans would use that as a way to throw it at non-fans, and any thoughts of "no we wouldn't, becuase we're the enlightened, understanding ones" is a lie, becuase we see the non-fans say again and again how the movie got called a dud by the critics.
All I was trying to say is that critizing a guy whos job it is to be a critic for doing his job is like criticzing a teacher for teaching. Ebert did his job, despite it yeilding unpopular results with a large chunk of the fandom. That's it. You can critisize the mail carrier for bringing your mail late, or bending your magazines, but you can't really criticise the mail carrier for bringing the mail and not expect to sound like you're just griping.