Ebert: "Video games can never be art"

[Max Payne]

Mass Effect 2 has better characters, plot, and action scenes than 70% of Hollywood films these days.

 

[ForceStealer]

Pac-Man has better characters, plot, and action scenes than 70% of Hollywood films these days.

 

[Max Payne]

.....

 

[Geostigma]

Pac-Man has better characters, plot, and action scenes than 70% of Hollywood films these days.

I get the point of this post but meh, your post still sucks.
edit:
Anyway does modern art piss off anyone else as much as it pisses me off?
Jesus christ, now a days you can buy a tv, draw 1 line on it with a sharpie and put it in a exhibit and as long as you come off as a smug ass hole it will probably sale for thousands.

Also most abstract art, is stupid. I'd make some to get rich too if only i had less dignity.

 

[looneymoon]

I remember my high school art student teacher was showing us stuff he had made. One thing that stood out was a big metal box with an anvil inside. I was holding back tears of laughter.

 

[Tennyo]

Should we use porn as a means to convince Roger Ebert that movies are not art as well?

I mean, movies are meant as entertainment. Most of them are nothing more than that. Art? I think not...

And you know, if all movies aren't art then none of them are. This is why games are not art.

 

[Sheva Alomar]

Whoever said Mass Effect, I'm echoing you.

This old dude needs to play the fucking Mass Effect series. End of.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Honestly, Level 48 of Pac-Man has much more artistic merit and cultural commentary than 5 minutes of "Freddy Got Fingered."

I'm dead serious.

 

[Max Payne]

THIS JUST IN, EBERT RESPONDS: BAWWWW UM NOT TOO OLD

As the "games as art" debate roars on, film critic Roger Ebert finds his name in the headlines again, this time after a lengthy attack on the gaming industry in a recent article entitled "Video Games can never be art." In it, he claims that games can't be art for a number of different reasons, none of which deviate from his traditional slander on the medium. More recently, however, he has found himself defending his opinion on Twitter.

In the days since his article went live, many have apparently claimed Ebert is simply too old to "get" video games, an argument that he was quick to rebut: "Over and over, the gamers tell me I am too old to appreciate video games," he replied, "Not a one is too young to appreciate art."

Apparently, gamers hit a nerve. Since then, he issued another statement, claiming, "I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read."

This is a claim that should make anyone to ever pick up a game controller cringe. While he's not literally saying that he's too smart for games, he's... sort of saying exactly that. In his wave or Twitter rebuttals, he even went as far as to post that he was surprised that the gamers arguing against him were "literate," another desperate swing by an out-of-touch man.

This condescending statement will obviously do little but further aggravate those who are against him, which might be his point to begin with. He's slipped out of relevancy in the film industry, so he apparently has to get his kicks by randomly assigning qualifications to the completely subjective term "art." In his article, he even finds time to say that Flower isn't a game, meaning he's even taking time out of his busy schedule to qualify "game" as well. Lucky us. What would we ever do without him.

http://www.gamervision.com/users/coop/articles/ebert_claims_he_s_too_well_read_to_get_video_games

 

[ForceStealer]

Damn, what an old dick.

 

[null]

LOL @ film critic turned troll.

I really would like him to review Mass Effect 2. Hell, just review the launch trailer. That's Martin Sheen starring in the best two goddamned minutes of trailer history.

 

[DrakeClawfang]

On the bright side, he's 68. Don't like saying stuff like this but within 5 years he should be kicking the bucket.

EDIT - reading up on the guy, seems he's lost the ability to speak. That's the power of the internet folks - even the mute can be loudmouths.

EDITx2

"video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful", but "the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art"

.....WTF does that mean? Does he mean because video games are interactive? All I can think of, and it's a load of bullshit. It may be a convoluted one, but the Legacy of Kain games have an incredibly deep, complex storyline told to us by an awesome cast of voice actors doing a great job. LoK's storyline, acting and writing is far superior to a lot of the rotten drivel Hollywood tries to pass off as movies these days.

 

[Max Payne]

Yeah right. His kind always lives the longest.

I have an annoying step-aunt who never shuts the hell up about shit she knows nothing about. Bitch is like 105.

 

[Sheva Alomar]

May Ebert die by the hands of angry nerd rage.

 

[Alex]

JACK THOMPSON HAS REGENERATED!

His face may have changed, but his trolling of the video game community remains the same.

 

[DrakeClawfang]

More Ebert BS - he reviewed Friday the 13th and gave it 1/4, yet he didn't really seem to say a word about the film

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100428/REVIEWS/100429976

Forget about the plot, the actors and the director. What you require to make a new "Nightmare on Elm Street" are these three off-the-shelf sound effects: 1. A sudden, loud clanging noise mixed with a musical chord. 2. Snicker-snack sounds, which Freddy Krueger's steel finger claws make every time they are seen. 3. A voice deepener, to drop Freddy's speaking voice to an ominous level.
On top of that, you need your sudden cuts, your lighting from below, your thump-thump-thumps and of course a dog that barks at something unseen in the night, so that your teenage heroine can go out on the lawn in bare feet and flimsy PJs and call "Rufus! Rufus! Here, boy!" You know in your bones that Rufus is now checking into Doggie Heaven.

Oh, and actors. Lots of Dead Teenagers, seen in the last moments of their lives, when they enjoy a farewell Moment of Deceptive Safety just before there's a sudden loud clanging noise and the snicker-snack claws disembowel them and Freddy rumbles, You have nothing to worry about. This won't hurt one … little ... bit.

The 2010 edition of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is number 8 1/2 in the series. I arrive at that number not out of a desperate desire to be seeing the Fellini film instead, but because "Freddy vs. Jason" (2003) should in all fairness count for half a film on this list, and half a film on the "Friday the 13th" list.

It is sad to think of all those Dead Teenagers. They were played by ambitious, talented young actors, some of them now in their 40s, who survived grueling auditions for the honor of being slashed by Freddy. Some of them are now successful: Johnny Depp, for example. Robert Englund became famous playing Freddy, but where can that lead when you're always wearing a mask of makeup. Now Jackie Earle Haley plays the role. For what purpose? He might as well play Santa Claus.

It was 26 long years ago when Freddy first began to haunt the nightmares of the children of Elm Street in Springwood, Ohio. At least 137 victims have been claimed by Freddy in the years since then, but the shady little street is still lined with handsome homes, and hasn't been leveled, covered with ashes and sprinkled with holy water. The franchise was founded by Wes Craven, the Ray Kroc of horror, who made the excellent "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" (1994), about Freddy haunting the dreams of the makers of the "Nightmare" movies.

Freddy is not a good argument for a supernatural existence. He can live inside wallpaper, appear anywhere and has no need of physical existence, except, arguably, when he inflicts actual physical damage. Yet he's such a bore, always growling away with his deep-voiced hahahahaha. If a man leads an interesting life, he ought to be able to make good conversation, is what I say.

I stared at "A Nightmare on Elm Street" with weary resignation. The movie consists of a series of teenagers who are introduced, haunted by nightmares and then slashed to death by Freddy. So what? Are we supposed to be scared? Is the sudden clanging chord supposed to evoke a fearful Pavlovian response? For Rufus, maybe, but not for me. Here, boy.

 

[Makoeyes987]

...I'm not quite seeing what's wrong with that critique of the film.

I mean, yeah, I think what he says about video games is BS, but when it comes to films, he's certainly intelligent and even if you disagree, you can see where he's coming from.

Which is why his rant against video games seems even more nonsensical and out of character.

 

[Tennyo]

It all comes down to sticking with what you know. Ebert knows movies, and so he should stick to that. Leave video games to the pros.

 

[DrakeClawfang]

...I'm not quite seeing what's wrong with that critique of the film..

How about the fact he talks about everything about the NOES franchise EXCEPT this latest entry? I read it on Wikipedia, it *did* have a plot, an excuse plot like most slashers but it was there. I just find it incredible he can almost pointedly avoid talking about the film while talking at some length about all related topics.

 

[Tennyo]

You are confusing me, Drake. Are you trying to make a connection with FFXIII here?

 

[DrakeClawfang]

I meant to type "FT13", but I guess I hit F twice out of habit. :p

 

[Tennyo]

Ah I see. But you do realize that "Friday the 13th" is a completely different horror franchise, don't you?


That being said, I think that whole review can be summed up in five words: It is a boring movie. I understood what he was thinking. He was basically ripping everything to shreds, and rightfully so, imho. I can't say that I'm much of a fan of the "Elm Street" movies. :/

 

[DrakeClawfang]

Grah! STOP MAKING ME LOOK STUPID, THAT'S OERBA YUN FANG'S JOB! ><

 

[Makoeyes987]

I knew what you meant, if it means anything

But I think the reason Ebert didn't say much about the plot, is because it's just a rehash and almost anyone would know it from the get go. I honestly didn't have much faith in it to begin with.

Most fucking horror movie remakes these days are trash. Its really annoying as a fan of horror. But I did enjoy the Crazies, incidentally enough. That was a great one.

 

[Hisako]

And Zombieland.
Coincidentally Ebert loved Zombieland.