The Energon Pub

"Those who think Transformers is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved."
— Roger Ebert on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen fans


Before we get into an arguement over whether RotF was a good film or not, save it. This thread isn't about that.

I'm sure all of us are certian that DotM is going to be evicerated by critics just like before. I'm also sure we all know the film will be among the top 10 of the year, just like before. However I think it's time I brought up something that I've taken pot shots at in threads. That being the critical establishment having gone too far.

Gone too far how? Quite simply the idea that it's "ok" to hate those who enjoy the films started with Roger Ebert's above quote and associated rant. Whether the films are good, crap, etc to you on a personal level is perfectly fine. However I'm curious to see how to sits with you all that critics, supposed professional journalists, are willing to attack not only a film but those who enjoy it. It's becoming more frequent as well, with reviews of Battle: Los Angeles and Sucker Punch being only partial reviews and more opportunities for the writers to criticize those who enjoy the films regardless of critical opinion.

And even if you agree that the films aren't good you're not safe, as Ebert took the time to critcize you all as a fanbase as well:

"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

So I ask now what do you all believe of this style of criticism, that suddenly to be a fan makes you a target?

I hate that guy.

Personally, I've never paid attention to anyone's opinion on a film other than my own, since that's the only one that truly matters to my enjoyment of the film. I'll gladly listen to, and even debate with someone on how or why they reached their particular conclusion of how good a film was, but at the end of the day my enjoyment comes down to me and me alone. The same goes for my various hobbies and interests, among them being Transformers (as well as enough other "nerd" interests to make the label fit ). I couldn't care less what someone else thinks of the hobby I enjoy, because in the end, I'm the one that gets to enjoy it while their left to simply hate something that they can never change: my opinion.

All that said, I find the way Ebert handled his review and subsequent commentary of the film to be deplorable. I had respected him as a fairly reliable voice for cinema until then, and seeing him act that way showed that he was really a shell of an "evolved" human being. Any evolved person can grasp the idea of difference in opinion and respect other's opinions. Instead he's become nothing more than a pompous, arrogant wind bag. He's entitled to not like any film he chooses. But the moment he tries to claim someone who does like something he doesn't, he loses all credibility he ever had.

Joker'sRequiem wrote:All that said, I find the way Ebert handled his review and subsequent commentary of the film to be deplorable. I had respected him as a fairly reliable voice for cinema until then, and seeing him act that way showed that he was really a shell of an "evolved" human being. Any evolved person can grasp the idea of difference in opinion and respect other's opinions. Instead he's become nothing more than a pompous, arrogant wind bag. He's entitled to not like any film he chooses. But the moment he tries to claim someone who does like something he doesn't, he loses all credibility he ever had.

I'd have passed it off as Ebert being angry from being wrong (in a sense his negative review did nothing to stop RotF's success), but then you have to remember he took to attacking fellow critics who liked it such as Armand White. Quoting wikipedia:

"It is baffling to me that a critic could praise Transformers 2 but not Synecdoche, NY. Or Death Race but not There Will Be Blood. I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll; a smart and knowing one, but a troll." White condemned Ebert's response, saying "the guy has won a Pulitzer Prize for criticism [...] Criticizing colleagues is not what we do".

I never liked Ebert.. Some of the movies he gives thumbs up to are like WTF?

I never listen to critics either.

It's almost like he thinks his own way of critiquing movies is the correct way just because he's been doing it forever. Movies evolve over time, and it's almost like he bases his opinions on if his old chess playing buddies will enjoy seeing the movie back in his time.

I only listen to one critic, Nostalgia Critic.

Ebert disgusts me, he really should have suffered some consequences for those comments. Most people catch a lot of crap for making far less offensive comments. I guess no one listens to him anymore to be offended

Spleenzorio wrote:It's almost like he thinks his own way of critiquing movies is the correct way just because he's been doing it forever. Movies evolve over time, and it's almost like he bases his opinions on if his old chess playing buddies will enjoy seeing the movie back in his time.

I only listen to one critic, Nostalgia Critic.

His reviews of both Transformers films were, in my eyes, hilarious. His only film review I disagreed with was Independance Day.

Without Gene Siskel as a foil, Ebert's opinions are worthless.

Capt.Failure wrote:

Spleenzorio wrote:It's almost like he thinks his own way of critiquing movies is the correct way just because he's been doing it forever. Movies evolve over time, and it's almost like he bases his opinions on if his old chess playing buddies will enjoy seeing the movie back in his time.

I only listen to one critic, Nostalgia Critic.

His reviews of both Transformers films were, in my eyes, hilarious. His only film review I disagreed with was Independance Day.

That and Space Jam for me. I loved that movie when I was small.

Prime Riblet wrote:Without Gene Siskel as a foil, Ebert's opinions are worthless.

It's not just Ebert though, but the critical establishment. What I wanna know is where is the hate coming from? The fact that the opinions of critics mean less and less each year? Some kind of misguided belief that they have the final word on film quality? A similar misguided belief that they define what is and what is not art?

Just look at this:



Trying to stick to Transformers to keep the thread on topic for the forums. Again, look at the disparity between professional critics on the left and audiences on the right. Did Ebert see this, and the film's success, and have a childish (if well written) tantrum on his blog that people liked what he didn't? I'd expect that from an average forum goer (just look at me for Primus' sake ), but not a professional journalist.

Edit: I'll add that such disparity leads critics and those who support them to call general audiences idiots, ADD addled children, and rednecks with zero taste in film. This, in turn, is no better than Ebert's rantings.

I was never one to pay attention to "professional" critics. They do what they do because they can't do what they criticize, good or bad.

And thanks for reminding me why I don't feel sorry for Ebert because of his health problems. Karma. (And now I will end up with cancer. F**k.)

Ebert Champions the Dark Knight as an "intelligent" film as it's extremely plothole ridden story was somehow pretentious enough to fit into his tastes. A movie where the national guard somehow misses 50 drums of explosives on two boats till the boat starts moving....and puts a lone cop as the only thing keeping the joker in a cell after Batman tees off on him is hardly a smart film as the world just jobs to the Joker out of plot convience the entire film.

Ebert regularly attacks his fellow reviewers nowdays as he did that for his Thor review. He even admits during his own review he didn't give a damn about the film or was paying attention much to it. Like well I'm sorry movies are telling the story they want to tell not written to tell the story you want to tell. He's completely classless and the irony is he was the guy wanting movies to be taken seriously as a media when he was younger, and he's the old grump telling the world that video games can't be art. Oh how the mighty have fallen. He's the George Lucas of Movie critics.

Honestly, I do not care one bit what a "professional" thinks to decide for me if a movie is good or not. I decide that. Because I have my own opinion, and I do not allow others to control my opinion.

And, as Capt.Failure showed us, so does the majority more times than not. Yeah, Ebert bashed the second movie and those who enjoyed it, but the majority who saw it still enjoyed it. They didn't need his word to decide if they were to see it or not.

Will Dark of the Moon suffer the "wrath" of the critics?
In my opinion, the people will decide that.
And, of course, if the critics love it, then there is no "threat" (but don't hold your breath).

Besides, how many films have each of these critics directed or produced in their lifetimes?

Lastjustice wrote:Ebert Champions the Dark Knight as an "intelligent" film as it's extremely plothole ridden story was somehow pretentious enough to fit into his tastes. A movie where the national guard somehow misses 50 drums of explosives on two boats till the boat starts moving....and puts a lone cop as the only thing keeping the joker in a cell after Batman tees off on him is hardly a smart film as the world just jobs to the Joker out of plot convience the entire film.

Exactly! Everyone's always saying that it's the most realistic and dark super hero movie ever. Sure it's dark, but there's no way in hell the Joker could have pulled off any of that. When I first saw the movie I was thinking to myself: "What just happened? How the hell did that happen!? You can't do that!" I was totally confused. Everything was way too convenient. And in the beginning, how did the cops not se that bus, covered in smoke drive out of the giant hole in the bank? That still confuses me; as do a lot of things about that movie.

You know, this isn't in response to anyone in particular but it's on topic with how film criticism has changed:

How would Star Wars and it's sequels have faired if they'd debuted nowadays? There's so much in common on the surface between them and the Transformers films when I analyze it:

1. Emphasis on action over plot
2. A relatively thin plot at that
3. Groundbreaking effects that take center stage over said plot
4. *A Big Bad with little relevance who dies in a single stroke battle (mind you, for Transformers it happened in the 2nd film, not the third)
5. Wooden, hammy acting with plenty of dull suprise
6. **A pretty blatant @$$ pull (2nd film for Tranformers, not the 3rd)
7. ***An epic as hell plot twist (in the 3rd film for Transformers, not the 2nd)

For being considered the series that "changed movie making forever," I'm pretty convinced that based on these simple factors Star Wars would have been critically evicerated with the current attitude of the critical establishment and their supporters.

*The Emperor/The Fallen: Both plot a bit in the background, show off some impressive fireworks, then die like a punk while not really having done much
**Jetfire can power up Optimus/Leia is Luke's sister (at least the former added to the plot)
***Vader is Luke's father/Sentinel Prime is the true Big Bad

Note: All analasys is based on excessive nerdiness and lots of caffiene.

SlyTF1 wrote:Exactly! Everyone's always saying that it's the most realistic and dark super hero movie ever. Sure it's dark, but there's no way in hell the Joker could have pulled off any of that. When I first saw the movie I was thinking to myself: "What just happened? How the hell did that happen!? You can't do that!" I was totally confused. Everything was way too convenient. And in the beginning, how did the cops not se that bus, covered in smoke drive out of the giant hole in the bank? That still confuses me; as do a lot of things about that movie.

What about the flaming firetruck blocking their path? They really couldn't go around and had to go into the underground, with a VIP in transport? And you're telling me that their helicopter support didn't spot that a mile away? IT WAS ON SLAGGIN' FIRE! AT NIGHT!! IN A CITY!!!

Did I mention I hated The Dark Knight?

Ebert needs some prune juice.

I must be fair here. While I can't comment on Ebert's bashing of fandoms, I can comment on what he had to say about us. People seem to forget, but we made the first strike. Some idiots in the fandom attacked him for his review and he got down in the trenches with us because of it.

He should've risen above it, being a professional and all, but we (the fandom, through a handful of voices) attacked him first.

He was replying in kind. Though a bit too far.

Critics will probably lambaste this one. Fans too. I've come to realize that no one, and I mean no one...knows what the hell they want.

For years we said "We want a badass movie! Make it happen, Hollywood!" Well, they did. They even got Mr. Bayhem himself to do it. The fans complained, the critics basically said "Ah, another Bay masterpiece, explosions galore. Oh and robots too." We got what we wanted and bitched.

Then came the sequel. People wanted a more G1 feel and we got it. The critics absolutely hated it, it polarized the fandom, and it made even more money and found a bigger audience.

Now, we're awaiting the third installment, and critics are already sharpening their teeth. Some fans aren't even willing to give it a chance, and it's quite possibly the best of the series yet. What I've read and seen so far tells me this could be the biggest and best one yet. With the biggest box office take to boot.

The problem is giving people what they want. You have to give them what they NEED. Wants change at the drop of a hat, needs don't. And INB4 anyone says "It's TransFormers...we don't actually NEED it..." I know, but you still get my point.

Until we get what we need out of these movies, no one's going to be truly happy. Problem is, we're a small cog in an otherwise large machine, and our voice falls on deaf ears compared to the ENTIRE WORLD. If the world says it's a hit, it's a hit. If the world says it's a dud, it's a dud.

If you want it to be a hit, you'll have to make some concessions and give people and not the fandom what they want. If you want it to be a dud, but wank the fans like never before, you'll give the fandom, but not the people, what they need.

Someone will always lose out. It's guaranteed. This is a battle that just cannot be won. Critics are just like us, they are very much a part of the audience, and they get screwed just like we do. They're going to complain, fans are going to complain, it's just how it goes.

C'est la vie.

Oh, and one more thing...I'm completely serious when I say this one could be THE hit of the trilogy. Usually threequels fall flat and suffer, but this one? Not only is it visually impressive, but the story is excellent. It really is.

You'll see a substantial difference between this film and the last two. Ehren Kruger has proven one thing to me: Orci & Kurtzman are bigger hacks than I had previously imagined. Anything that was good in the second film, came from him. Everything that was wrong in the second one and the first one...all came from them.

Autobot032 wrote:I must be fair here. While I can't comment on Ebert's bashing of fandoms, I can comment on what he had to say about us. People seem to forget, but we made the first strike. Some idiots in the fandom attacked him for his review and he got down in the trenches with us because of it.

He should've risen above it, being a professional and all, but we (the fandom, through a handful of voices) attacked him first.

He was replying in kind. Though a bit too far.

I won't give him such kindness mostly because he seemingly only listened to the kind of counter criticism that fit his world view:

"transformers 2 iz th3 best film evr n **** u 4 thnking othrwize!!!!!111!1!!1!"
-Approximate quote, since I don't wish to give his posted rant any more hits

Autobot032 wrote:Someone will always lose out. It's guaranteed. This is a battle that just cannot be won. Critics are just like us, they are very much a part of the audience, and they get screwed just like we do. They're going to complain, fans are going to complain, it's just how it goes.

Except a film critic is a journalist, and thus must hold themself to a high professional standard. This, in essence, means that no they cannot criticize the people who disagree with them within the confines of their writing because it is not a film critic's job to criticize the audience, but the film. That is what Ebert did, as the article against RotF fans was posted on his newspaper's site. Many others just put the same rants within the review proper, which is even worse. If I were an editor I'd fire a critic I caught doing that, as it's what I'd expect from 4chan rather than my newspaper articles.

Capt.Failure wrote:You know, this isn't in response to anyone in particular but it's on topic with how film criticism has changed:

How would Star Wars and it's sequels have faired if they'd debuted nowadays? There's so much in common on the surface between them and the Transformers films when I analyze it:

1. Emphasis on action over plot
2. A relatively thin plot at that
3. Groundbreaking effects that take center stage over said plot
4. *A Big Bad with little relevance who dies in a single stroke battle (mind you, for Transformers it happened in the 2nd film, not the third)
5. Wooden, hammy acting with plenty of dull suprise
6. **A pretty blatant @$$ pull (2nd film for Tranformers, not the 3rd)
7. ***An epic as hell plot twist (in the 3rd film for Transformers, not the 2nd)

For being considered the series that "changed movie making forever," I'm pretty convinced that based on these simple factors Star Wars would have been critically evicerated with the current attitude of the critical establishment and their supporters.

*The Emperor/The Fallen: Both plot a bit in the background, show off some impressive fireworks, then die like a punk while not really having done much
**Jetfire can power up Optimus/Leia is Luke's sister (at least the former added to the plot)
***Vader is Luke's father/Sentinel Prime is the true Big Bad

Note: All analasys is based on excessive nerdiness and lots of caffiene.

I'm in total agreement.

Personally, I think critics and viewers alike might have had simpler tastes back in the day. I mean, compare today's "cartoons" to those we grew up watching. Even the so-called "classics" like Transformers, GI Joe, Batman and Spiderman have become increasingly more serious in their contemporary incarnations, and the storyline [relatively] more complex than the ones way back when.

IMO, everything's just darker and more serious these days.

But back on the main topic, I really don't care if the critics shitcan DOTM. The trailer's shown me that the action's gonna be awesome, the battles set to be epic and it IS notably more serious and darker in tone, which is how I like my action movies. If the plot passes the "decent" zone, and it sounds decent enough from the spoilers I've read, it'll be my new favorite TF movie.

Capt.Failure wrote:Except a film critic is a journalist, and thus must hold themself to a high professional standard. This, in essence, means that no they cannot criticize the people who disagree with them within the confines of their writing because it is not a film critic's job to criticize the audience, but the film. That is what Ebert did, as the article against RotF fans was posted on his newspaper's site. Many others just put the same rants within the review proper, which is even worse. If I were an editor I'd fire a critic I caught doing that, as it's what I'd expect from 4chan rather than my newspaper articles.

Which is why I lost a lot of respect for him. As a professional and a person.

However, critics are the same as us: Human.

We are all prone to the same failings. Even a professional will crack under pressure at some point. It's not pretty, but it happens.

I'm not saying he's right, not even close. But he is human and he's gone through a lot of crap in recent years. Life changing stuff.

That's no excuse, but it should serve as a reminder that we needn't be cruel, and if need be...we should rise above it.

Well, in short not a fan of that type of criticism. It goes beyond stating what they thought of the movie into making their opinion law.

I have to wonder why ROTF was so heavily criticized, there've been many, MANY worse movies but it seems like critics went all out on it. Maybe I just haven't heard enough reviews or something...

first off this is not a defence of ebert. i find his work has become sloppy, frequently lazy, and he seems to be not following the movies as they happen

However, the role of the critic seems to be very misunderstood in a lot of examples here.

first of all critics is not short hand for criticism. they are reviewers, so they are not out to bash the movies you love, they are there to review them.

Secondly critics review movies based on the quality of the movie, not the popularity. so if they give a review of a movie, it doesnt mean that they dont think people will like it, just that its not good quality. So TF, or avatar can get average reviews, but smash box office. Popularity is not a reflection of quality. Miley cyrus, jonas brothers and bieber sell tonnes of records, it doesnt make them good.

finally this argument that critics are failed movie directors and therefore not equipped to review movies is a fallacy. Are restaurant critics all four star michellin chefs, are art critics hidden van goghs. No because it is about appreciation of the art. these people will have studied film, seen enourmous amounts of film, and would understand the history of cinema. Film historians arent usually fil directors (failed or otherwise). Doing the job is not neccesary for appreciation

shamone wrote:first off this is not a defence of ebert. i find his work has become sloppy, frequently lazy, and he seems to be not following the movies as they happen

However, the role of the critic seems to be very misunderstood in a lot of examples here.

first of all critics is not short hand for criticism. they are reviewers, so they are not out to bash the movies you love, they are there to review them.

Secondly critics review movies based on the quality of the movie, not the popularity. so if they give a review of a movie, it doesnt mean that they dont think people will like it, just that its not good quality. So TF, or avatar can get average reviews, but smash box office. Popularity is not a reflection of quality. Miley cyrus, jonas brothers and bieber sell tonnes of records, it doesnt make them good.

finally this argument that critics are failed movie directors and therefore not equipped to review movies is a fallacy. Are restaurant critics all four star michellin chefs, are art critics hidden van goghs. No because it is about appreciation of the art. these people will have studied film, seen enourmous amounts of film, and would understand the history of cinema. Film historians arent usually fil directors (failed or otherwise). Doing the job is not neccesary for appreciation

While you make perfectly valid points about the role a critic plays, I think you're missing the issue most of the posters are talking with the way Ebert (and other critics more recently) have handled their reviews of films. He's perfectly within his capacity as a film critic to criticize any film to the fullest extent. He can not like, hate, abhore, etc any film he chooses. But when he makes verbal attacks against those who don't agree with him simply because he feels his opinion is "right", he crosses a line that no one, especially a professional, should cross. The fact they he attacked fans of the film and even his fellow critics who happened to like the film and insulted their intelligence is what many of the posters have a problem with. The fact that he would act in such a way speaks volumes to his level of maturity, and clearly he deserves little respect if he chooses to act that way.

Capt.Failure wrote:I'd have passed it off as Ebert being angry from being wrong (in a sense his negative review did nothing to stop RotF's success), but then you have to remember he took to attacking fellow critics who liked it such as Armand White. Quoting wikipedia:

"It is baffling to me that a critic could praise Transformers 2 but not Synecdoche, NY. Or Death Race but not There Will Be Blood. I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll; a smart and knowing one, but a troll." White condemned Ebert's response, saying "the guy has won a Pulitzer Prize for criticism [...] Criticizing colleagues is not what we do".

And this just further shows how diluted his sense of self-importance is. The fact that he believes his opinion is "right" is bad enough, but attacking a fellow critic for their own personal views is down right pathetic. No one, not even a professional critic, has a more valid opinion on something than anyone else. The irony is that he calls someone who disagrees with him a troll simply because they disagree with him, yet his boorish and asinine behavior is more in line with what would be considered a troll. I wonder how long it's been since he took a long, hard look in the mirror and wondered if he himself was guilty of being, to put it bluntly, a troll?

Joker'sRequiem wrote:

shamone wrote:first off this is not a defence of ebert. i find his work has become sloppy, frequently lazy, and he seems to be not following the movies as they happen

However, the role of the critic seems to be very misunderstood in a lot of examples here.

first of all critics is not short hand for criticism. they are reviewers, so they are not out to bash the movies you love, they are there to review them.

Secondly critics review movies based on the quality of the movie, not the popularity. so if they give a review of a movie, it doesnt mean that they dont think people will like it, just that its not good quality. So TF, or avatar can get average reviews, but smash box office. Popularity is not a reflection of quality. Miley cyrus, jonas brothers and bieber sell tonnes of records, it doesnt make them good.

finally this argument that critics are failed movie directors and therefore not equipped to review movies is a fallacy. Are restaurant critics all four star michellin chefs, are art critics hidden van goghs. No because it is about appreciation of the art. these people will have studied film, seen enourmous amounts of film, and would understand the history of cinema. Film historians arent usually fil directors (failed or otherwise). Doing the job is not neccesary for appreciation

While you make perfectly valid points about the role a critic plays, I think you're missing the issue most of the posters are talking with the way Ebert (and other critics more recently) have handled their reviews of films. He's perfectly within his capacity as a film critic to criticize any film to the fullest extent. He can not like, hate, abhore, etc any film he chooses. But when he makes verbal attacks against those who don't agree with him simply because he feels his opinion is "right", he crosses a line that no one, especially a professional, should cross. The fact they he attacked fans of the film and even his fellow critics who happened to like the film and insulted their intelligence is what many of the posters have a problem with. The fact that he would act in such a way speaks volumes to his level of maturity, and clearly he deserves little respect if he chooses to act that way.

Capt.Failure wrote:I'd have passed it off as Ebert being angry from being wrong (in a sense his negative review did nothing to stop RotF's success), but then you have to remember he took to attacking fellow critics who liked it such as Armand White. Quoting wikipedia:

"It is baffling to me that a critic could praise Transformers 2 but not Synecdoche, NY. Or Death Race but not There Will Be Blood. I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll; a smart and knowing one, but a troll." White condemned Ebert's response, saying "the guy has won a Pulitzer Prize for criticism [...] Criticizing colleagues is not what we do".

And this just further shows how diluted his sense of self-importance is. The fact that he believes his opinion is "right" is bad enough, but attacking a fellow critic for their own personal views is down right pathetic. No one, not even a professional critic, has a more valid opinion on something than anyone else. The irony is that he calls someone who disagrees with him a troll simply because they disagree with him, yet his boorish and asinine behavior is more in line with what would be considered a troll. I wonder how long it's been since he took a long, hard look in the mirror and wondered if he himself was guilty of being, to put it bluntly, a troll?

i gree with eber, as my first line indicated. but the thread title is critics, and in other threads as well i have noticed critics getting dogs abuse for their opinion