...nearly a quarter of a century ago:
Smart guy, Ebert - of course, he's a skiffy fan from way back.
Smart guy, Ebert - of course, he's a skiffy fan from way back.
Roger Ebert on the future of movies...
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Ebert is indeed a smart fellow. He seems to get a lot of flak for his reviews and some consider him an old fogey, but I think he's sharp and witty and has more eclectic tastes than people give him credit for. For instance, he's quick to lambast a movie for being dumb and loud--unless it does something interesting with the fact that it's dumb and loud. It's not that he has no appreciation for popcorn cinema, he just doesn't like it done poorly and with nothing interesting to say.
He is more on-the-ball than people give him credit for.
He is more on-the-ball than people give him credit for.
It's funny--I picked up the Omni Future Almanac after randomly spotting it on a library shelf last week, and it's amazing at how far off the mark much of it is. Published in 1982, it predicted something like 5,000 people living full-time in space by 2010. Ebert did way better than most of the people who contributed to that book. And the fashion and cultural predictions were, to put it mildly, slightly off the mark.
Still, it was nice to look back at a time when there was a lot more optimism for the future than there is now.
Still, it was nice to look back at a time when there was a lot more optimism for the future than there is now.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yep. Roger's a smart man. It's nice to see intelligence and foresight lauded. Just don't read the article comments. 
To be fair, making proper predictions for an industry (and filmmaking is one) is no wizardry. Those folks (Kahn, Ehrlich, etc...) who say random stuff like "in 25 years everyone will own a portable fusion reactor" or "we'll all be wearing futuristic tinfoil hats" or "people will visit the moon as often as they visit their grandma" are walking jokes. Population Bomb, my ass.
Yeah, Ebert's a smart guy and I really respect his judgment and his powers of prognostication. And I respect his brave battle with cancer.
But damn, I still haven't forgiven him for panning Abrams' Star Trek movie. Grrrr.
Does Ebert or anyone else have any predictions about movies 25 years from now?
But damn, I still haven't forgiven him for panning Abrams' Star Trek movie. Grrrr.
Does Ebert or anyone else have any predictions about movies 25 years from now?
25 years from now, Michael Bay and Uwe Boll will be hailed as under-appreciated filmmakers and elevated to status of greats like Martin Scorsese, John Ford, and Akira Kurosawa...
That's some pretty keen insight there. Although to be fair, he's been reviewing for so long and he's probably had inside knowledge about where certain things were headed compared to most moviegoers, including trends of the time that were leading that way. Still, it's rather impressive. You see things like the widescreen TV in Back to the Future 2 and it looks amazingly spot on for what we have today, so maybe they were right about some of the things we'd have by 2012 
Not too shabby for 1989.
Not too shabby for 1989.
Except that Ebert didn't pan the movie - he found it a fun but so-so movie, giving it two-and-a-half stars. And his boredom where Trek is concerned dates back a ways...
When Ebert actually pans a movie, now, that's something to read.
When Ebert actually pans a movie, now, that's something to read.
I know - that jumped out at me as well! Is the "on demand" thing a particular American saying that has been around for a while, like Wrestlemania and movies can be ordered PPV "on demand"? Otherwise it is eerily prophetic!
That's a good question, actually. From what I can see, Pay-Per-View was around in the 80's but only really took off in the latter half. But it was around even before then, as early as the 70's, and even began testing the concept in the 50's. I think on-demand is a more modern term for it and I think Pay-Per-View as a term is fading out of use as cable companies want to hide the fact that you're paying for each individual use, which goes hand-in-hand with the behavior they have these days of expensive cable bills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-Per-View
Last edited:
The phrase "on demand" isn't new, but the traditional application of it was with regard to finance.
This is why I dont like people like him, I find it the height of condescension to use "doesnt have anything to say" type of criticism.
Mainly because the inherent implication from the person using it is "I am much too smart and intelligent to like this film, so I shall look down on those who do".
The idea that any film/book/tv show etc has to have some deep meaning or message to be entertaining or to be considered good is nonsense. Sometimes things are good just because they are fun to watch, even if the deepest they go is "we need to blow shit up".
