This one paragraph might say everything that needs to be said

[RookieBatman]

As to the notion that controversial films have to include balance...

I didn't say they have to have balance, I just said it makes them better if they do.

 

[Gaith]

Ebert can sometimes be right and sometimes not. Take his Superman Returns review

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009/1023

Now about Lois' kid. We know who his father is, and Lois knows, and I guess the kid knows, although he calls Richard his daddy. But why is nothing done with this character? He sends a piano flying across a room, but otherwise he just stares with big, solemn eyes, like one of those self-sufficient little brats you can't get to talk. It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.

NO!

Yeah, that was a crazy line. And the really funny part is, The Legend of Zorro did exactly that, and he howled about how terrible that was!

He has his moments of crazy for sure (I'd love to earnestly say The Golden Compass deserved four stars, but I couldn't), but I do find myself agreeing with him most of the time.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Just stepping back, my original idea for this thread was to not just talk about ebert, but to talk about the point he made about films now in this genre, and I think it is a decent point

 

[sidious618]

I love Ebert. I don't think he's bitter at all. I go to his reviews whenever I watch a movie. He gives a great analysis so even if he didn't care for it I can usually tell if I will.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I love Ebert. I don't think he's bitter at all. I go to his reviews whenever I watch a movie. He gives a great analysis so even if he didn't care for it I can usually tell if I will.

Same here. I don't get the flak directed at him. He not only says whether he likes a movie, he explains why. Beats all the self-styled critics out there who just like to proclaim something to be awesome or crap without any kind of reasoning or justification.

Also, what's this nonsense about movies having to show both sides of an issue? A film has a narrative and thus a point-of-view. Last I checked, that means you're going to get a subjective experience relating the story the writer and director wanted to tell--and yes, Virginia, there might be politics involved!

I mean, if people want movies that don't have any kind of agenda, go watch a nature documentary or something.

 

[Trent Roman]

Natchure shows are pro-environmint! Hands off mah truck, ya flower-filmin' hippies!

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[barnaclelapse]

Ebert can sometimes be right and sometimes not. Take his Superman Returns review

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/REVIEWS/60606009/1023

Now about Lois' kid. We know who his father is, and Lois knows, and I guess the kid knows, although he calls Richard his daddy. But why is nothing done with this character? He sends a piano flying across a room, but otherwise he just stares with big, solemn eyes, like one of those self-sufficient little brats you can't get to talk. It would have been fun to give Superman a bright, sassy child, like one of the Spy Kids, and make him a part of the plot.

NO!

Yeah, that was a crazy line. And the really funny part is, The Legend of Zorro did exactly that, and he howled about how terrible that was!

He has his moments of crazy for sure (I'd love to earnestly say The Golden Compass deserved four stars, but I couldn't), but I do find myself agreeing with him most of the time.

His crazy doesn't make me uncomfortable. That's more than I can say for a lot of other crazy celebrities.

 

[RookieBatman]

Also, what's this nonsense about movies having to show both sides of an issue? A film has a narrative and thus a point-of-view. Last I checked, that means you're going to get a subjective experience relating the story the writer and director wanted to tell--and yes, Virginia, there might be politics involved!

I mean, if people want movies that don't have any kind of agenda, go watch a nature documentary or something.

I already said, but will clarify again, that I didn't say movies have to show both sides, I just think that it can make the politics easier to swallow. The reason for that is oftentimes, when a person feels very strongly about a position, they develop the opinion that people on the other side of the issue are idiots (such as you apparently have with this issue). Thus, when they're writing the people arguing for their own side, they're putting all their best into it, because they feel passionately about their own side. But when they're writing the arguments of the other side, they portray them as idiots. So, if a viewer is in agreement with the other side, that viewer may feel like the moviemakers are calling him/her an idiot. It takes a better, more creative writer/creator to show valid arguments in favor of a side they feel is wrong, leaving the audience to make their own decisions, instead of preaching at them.

Getting back to my original example of Boston Legal (which I thought did an excellent job of showing both sides), it was always perfectly clear that David E. Kelley did have an agenda (the side which the heroes were defending). But he still showed the "wrong" side in a way that didn't make its proponents look like bumbling idiots. Which is the reason that I watched that show instead of a nature documentary.

However, in his review of The Sorcerer's Apprentice, which was just posted, he offers this, and, honestly, I kind of agree with him, at least largely so.

I use the word "consumer" deliberately. This genre doesn't require an audience in the traditional sense. It attracts children and young teenagers with the promise of cinematic fast food: It's all sugar and caffeine, no nutrition. In place of a plot, there's a premise; in place of carefully crafted action, there are stupefying exercises in computer-generated imagery, and in place of an ending, there's a hook for the sequel and, if all goes well, a new franchise.

Getting back to the original topic, I do agree with this statement for the most part. I don't think it's exactly a new thing, but it's become so much more blatant lately. It seems like a lot of the movie makers just aren't trying to do anything new, but are instead recycling all the same stuff, hoping that the flashy new imagery of whichever particular brand that movie is will make it work. Sometimes it does, too; popcorn movies can be a lot of fun, and it can be an experience watching good special effects whether the story's there or not. But I certainly don't want every movie to be like that, and it seems like they're cranking them out a lot more regularly these days.