Ebert: "Video games can never be art"

[Alessa Gillespie]

Let's be honest, who DIDN'T love Zombieland.

 

[Hisako]

Man it was like Shaun of the Dead and Stranger Than Fiction's GUI and America all smashed together.
Especially the GUI although it wasn't quite as heavy.

 

[Tennyo]

Let's be honest, who DIDN'T love Zombieland.

I didn't.

But that's probably because I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Lord Noctis]

I didn't.

But that's probably because I haven't seen it yet.

Walk away from your computer, go to your video store, and rent it. Now.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

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

Because he literally said nothing about it.

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 ...

I do.

... you can see where he's coming from.

I can't.

Do I really have to remind everyone that this fucker wrote the screenplay for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls"?

Say what one will about Lawrence Toppman's bad reviews -- and a lot can be said about them (the absurdity of equating the Final Fantasy series with "jabbing buttons" and "yanking joysticks" immediately springs to mind, as does labeling it implausible for Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli to take out scores of orcs in his "The Two Towers" review because "they're not Thor and the Incredible Hulk" -- even though the statement is made in "The Return of the King" novel that there were some among the Captains of the West "worth more than a thousand mail-clad knights apiece" to Sauron) -- but at least he talks about the movie in question and often addresses whether he thinks it achieved what it set out to do, rather than holding it to some expectation it never wanted to and wasn't intended to meet.

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.

Nor did I -- which makes Ebert's review all the more infuriating. The plot of the new "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is actually decent, and I say that as someone who isn't a fan of horror movies in general, and has a paranoid suspicion of remakes in particular.

The only reason I went to see the movie is because a friend of mine wanted to, and I honestly have to say that it was better than the original. We have a far more effective and creepy Krueger than ever before, and the characters were built up and portrayed well.

Clearly Ebert was too busy taking his own advice to "forget about the plot, the actors and the director" to pay attention to these things so that he could instead begin writing his review during the screening.

To respond specifically to what you mentioned about the plot being a rehash, Mako, I should mention that the plot has some significant changes from the original, so the fact that Ebert didn't even think these relevant to mention is, well, dumb as fuck. These changes, by the way, actually make it a better story.

 

[Interslicery]

Effective and creepy kruger? I'm sure that what they were going for, but he was written shittily. he had no fucking personality.
The characters were not built up and portrayed well, they were all forgettable and I can only remember nancys name cause I've seen the original.
The plot was different, and it had an interesting aspect to it, but it wasnt written well, and it was shittily filmed.

That said eberts review does suck. He gets away with it because hes ebert, but if he were no one and submitted this, they'd tell him to fuck off and publish a real review instead

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Effective and creepy kruger? I'm sure that what they were going for, but he was written shittily. he had no fucking personality.

Creepy sadist isn't a personality? He was infinitely better than the campy clown of yesteryear. The original Krueger was always more annoying than anything.

A guy who torments you and tries to kill you in your dreams should strike terror in your soul, not make you wish he'd shut the fuck up and/or take your murder a little more seriously.

The characters were not built up and portrayed well, they were all forgettable and I can only remember nancys name cause I've seen the original.

I can remember all of their names -- including that of the guy who

Spoiler

died in the first five minutes. =P

They're not Jack, Sawyer and Kate, no, but for a horror film -- and a slasher at that -- they were done very well. I challenge you to describe any of the main four with a single word at any rate.

The plot was different, and it had an interesting aspect to it, but it wasnt written well, and it was shittily filmed.

I imagine we'll just have to agree to disagree about how well it was written, but I'm curious as to why you feel the filming was shitty. I thought it was quite competent.

That said eberts review does suck. He gets away with it because hes ebert, but if he were no one and submitted this, they'd tell him to fuck off and publish a real review instead

Hell, they'd probably stop at "fuck off."

 

[Makoeyes987]

You lost all credibility when you said that shit stain remake of Nightmare no Elm Street was better than the original, Tres.

First, the film version of "V for Vendetta" is better than the graphic novel, and now this? Really?

Does your failitude know no limits? Goddamnit. Stop. Just stop it!

You need to stick to your forte of chubby chasing. That's clearly the only subject I can trust you to be qualified in, now. My God.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Go eat a cock, faggot. =P

 

[Kikyou]

You would want him to eat your cock, wouldn't you Tres?

 

[DrakeClawfang]

Shouldn't this be saved for the shipping thread?

 

[looneymoon]

Ebert's apology.

I lolled when he called them "gaming machines." Just goes to show.

 

[Max Payne]

I read that when he posted it, I couldn't even bring myself to care.

 

[Ⓐaron]

At least he admits he was full of shit. A lot of people don't have the courage to do that.

 

[ForceStealer]

His predisposition is still perplexing, and a shame. Because now I'm genuinely curious as to what his reaction would be to Shadow of the Colossus. That certainly only has one ending, one way to go.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

Yeah, even though he gets points for owning up, at the same time it's pretty irriating to see his stubborness, even in this article.

"I DON'T WANT TO PLAY VIDEO GAMES, I JUST DON'T WANT TO"

Look buddy, saying that over and over again is just making it more apparent that you shouldn't have written the first article if you have absolutely no interest in the source material. My grandmother doesn't want to play video games either, but she's not going to write a fucking dissertation on whether they are or are not art, either.

 

[Ghost X]

I read his apology a while ago, can't be bothered doing it again, but from my recollection of it, didn't he say he only apologises for saying something on a matter he has little knowledge of? He actually still believes video games can not be art.

 

[Splintered]

It sounded like he had a stupid opinion, stated it on the internet like he knew what he was talking about, got it up the ass like he should have, and now is backpedaling to save face. But without actually saying videogames can be art. He just he doesn't know enough to argue on the internet, video games can't be art in his eyes, and he doesn't care enough to try and prove himself wrong.

Meh, let him do as he likes. If he can't bother to put in the time to play Flower of all things, then I can't be bothered to care what he thinks.

 

[Makoeyes987]

I knew there was a brain in that shriveled old husk he calls a skull.

I can respect him a bit more again. At least he acknowledged his own bias and shit.

 

[HylianMogget]

Because now I'm genuinely curious as to what his reaction would be to Shadow of the Colossus. That certainly only has one ending, one way to go.

Me too! His response page was such a tease - lots of images of SotC but the only thing he says about it is basically "lol I guess I should play it ".

It's good that he acknowledges he doesn't know much/anything about video games and that he's really biased about the whole issue. I mean he still isn't calling video games art, but at least he admits it's due to a personal aversion and unwillingness to give them a chance.

 

[looneymoon]

Eh. I can't blame him too much. If I was old and in bad health I'd probably be pretty stubborn too. If he's simply not interested then I'll just let him be. At least he was able to admit he was being dumb in the first place.