Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Much ado about Thumbs - Ebert, Roeper, Disney and THUMBS all caps!

I assume this was misposted in Coaxial by Bob of the Shire	Aug 25th, 2007 12:11:14 AM
Ba-doink! Anyway, crazy times. -1 for Disney.
It's about a Television Show, so probably not... by colematthews	Aug 25th, 2007 12:16:56 AM
Disney should be ashamed of themselves, Roger Ebert is an institution and a class act.
I love Ebert and I hope he makes it back. by eggbeater	Aug 25th, 2007 12:23:45 AM
Very happy to see him writing reviews again. Ebert has always said he hated using the Thumbs up or down to review movies. GET WELL ROGER
Two Thumbs Down for U.S. Copyright Law by topaz4206	Aug 25th, 2007 01:28:35 AM
At this rate, by 2010 you won't be able to say or do anything that isn't already owned by someone else. Awesome! (Use of "Awesome" in public forums (c)1999 by TopaZ. All Rights Reserved)
remember a SESAME ST ep when S&E give Sideways THUMB by George Newman	Aug 25th, 2007 01:59:55 AM
It is a vivid moment in my memory. My first recollection of recognizing Siskel and Ebert and the THUMBS UP/ THUMBS DOWN rating. Siskel and Ebert are having a conversation with Oscar the Grouch about rating movies. Oscar suggests a middle ground vote: the sideways thumb. I thought it was hilarious and I couldn't have been older than 5.
Give that Roeper Weasel the Finger by chromedome	Aug 25th, 2007 02:05:08 AM
Roeper is the Worst thing that ever happened to that show
Your old pal by Freakemovie	Aug 25th, 2007 02:21:44 AM
I agree, Ebert really has always been a class act. It's good to know that you guys are pals.
Ebert a class act? by MignolaFan	Aug 25th, 2007 02:53:56 AM
Probablly but he is also the guy that said video games weren't a form of art. Tell that to all the artists working in video games. Not to mention people said the same thing of film back when it first showed up. Even his more recent response to it and debate with clive barker(by debate I mean him debating him after the fact rather than writing him) made him look like an ass. He is a dinasour and needs to quit with the movie reviews. He liked Garfield for fuck sake.
P.S. by MignolaFan	Aug 25th, 2007 02:55:03 AM
My post is about him as a reviewer, not as a person. I'm sure he is very nice and charismatic...like Ted Bundy.
as one fat guy to another by ciroslive	Aug 25th, 2007 02:59:03 AM
as one fat guy who watches movies to another, I hope Ebert wins whatever thing he's got going on. THUMBS UP!!!
Bioshock is not art. by wash	Aug 25th, 2007 03:19:48 AM
Wait a minute...I just got done with a 5 hour crack binge, hold on a second. Ok, all better.
Roeper is the worst ... by kilpack	Aug 25th, 2007 03:27:17 AM
reviewer ever to appear on that show. He just barely edges out that portly red-haired guest host who gave 'SLC Punk' a thumbs down.
Thumb up... his ass. by OtisSpofford	Aug 25th, 2007 03:54:14 AM
Yes, obvious, but does Roeper deserve subtlety? Here's hoping for an Ebert/CGI Siskel combo...
Ebert by cromwell1666	Aug 25th, 2007 03:57:32 AM
This man's reviews are often filled with misinformation pertaining to facts(Read his Rush Hour 2 and Silverado reviews- both contain passionate diatribes regarding clearly misinterpreted scenes). His entire writing style is smug and condescending, and he is so pretentious as to believe he should be the arbiter in defining art. I have deep respect for many critics whose views I appreciate hearing(Jeff Lyons is one of the most gregarious and knowledgable critics out there and good old Joe Seigel was a joy) but his writing "voice" is clearly designed to build each review as a monument to himself. His responses to Barker on the video game issue were trite and rude, and his staccato use of "why would I watch this film when I could be reading a Saul Bellow novel" and the old reliable attacks on television, which, make no mistake, are blanketed insults directed at you. I love you Harry, but this guy is just a blowhard and an obnoxious ass.
Caesar wants money by HornOrSilk	Aug 25th, 2007 04:22:13 AM
He used the thumb first... or so he claims...
Roger is the man! by TattooedBillionaire	Aug 25th, 2007 04:44:51 AM
I've been reading his reviews for years now, and his health problems have had me worried. I hope he's okay because it was really hard to read Roeper and Zwecker reviews on Fridays in the Sun-Times when he was too ill to write.
Jugdish by cromwell1666	Aug 25th, 2007 04:50:09 AM
"he's always been straight forward with all his criticisms" Do you mean he has not been compromised by studios in some way?
Ebert Ratings by cromwell1666	Aug 25th, 2007 05:03:54 AM
3.5 stars for Episode 3 3.5 stars for Transformers come on, guys,
Generally speaking... by Bobo_Vision	Aug 25th, 2007 05:21:37 AM
...I trust Ebert's reviews, although he does have his missteps (I still remember the fact that he loved 'Hollywood Homicide', and based on that review I endured two hours of hell).
what did disney expect.... by roccotheripper	Aug 25th, 2007 08:19:01 AM
for Ebert to just NOT tell everyone the real deal here?? where is the logic here?
Ebert might be a class act.... by BangoSkank	Aug 25th, 2007 08:25:07 AM
....and I wish him all the best in his health and recovery, but.... he can also be as pig-headed and egotistical as any critic out there. And why all the hate for Roeper? That's a real question. He seems rather open minded when it comes to his reviews.....
Disney is known for underhanded negotiations by snowpuff	Aug 25th, 2007 08:27:55 AM
Disney basically STOLE Winnie the Pooh from its creators. When they were sued, documents "disappeared." Oops. It works for them. They got away with stealing the Winnie the Pooh characters. Their strategy here was clearly to try and embarrass Ebert somehow. Sounds like it is going to backfire.
Check out every single Ebert review for black films by matthooper8	Aug 25th, 2007 09:11:31 AM
He couldn't have actually loved every one, could he?
I love Ebert too. by heyscot	Aug 25th, 2007 09:23:34 AM
Growing up in Chicago, Roger Ebert has been a fixture in my love for movies and has been extraordinarily articulate in his reviews. He's a treasure. I'm really disgusted by Disney's conduct in treating such a beloved movie icon this way and will be boycotting their products until this is resolved. Have some class, Disney. Ebert should be treated with respect.
I would actually rather them use star ratings anyway... by Charlie Murphy	Aug 25th, 2007 09:38:12 AM
it's just a little more informative to say "three stars" or "three and a half" or "one" as opposed to the classic thumbs up/down.
This is such BS by BeatsMe	Aug 25th, 2007 10:03:13 AM
I'm sorry, but how can he control the use of thumbs up when there's an entire history of it: http://bernd.wechner.info/Hitc hhiking/Thumb/
Ebert is a misserable bugger. by Filmrage	Aug 25th, 2007 10:15:54 AM
I wish him well in health and all that but he's a miserable git and he sucks at reviewing movies. He recomends garbage and sometimes puts down good stuff.
Trademark by David655321	Aug 25th, 2007 10:50:26 AM
It's wonderful that the AP not only got the story wrong, but they don't understand the difference between a trademark and a copyright. A copyright applies to a work of individual expression, like a movie or a painting. An individual episode of the Ebert TV show is subject to copyright protection. A trademark is something which indicates the source of a good or service, such as a brand name ("NIKE"), logo (the Nike swoosh), or a unique source identifier such as "THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN."
Nobody has "it" like Siskel and Ebert by INWOsuxRED	Aug 25th, 2007 11:19:35 AM
every time they left a station in Chicago, that station would carry on with different hosts, and they all sucked. Jerry Lyons? Michael Medved? A bunch of other people I don't remember? THEY ALL SUCK. Roper-less Ebert is significantly better than any of the other wannabe shows that came around, but it still doesn't live up to Ebert in Roper, much less Siskel and Ebert. You'd think there would be hundreds of thousands of smart people who would love to watch TV, and you'd think at least one of them would be more interesting to watch. I like to watch the movie review show, but it seems like there should be a better one. Then again, what is the point when shit like Chuck and Larry can make a bazillion dollars on opening day. Nobody pays attention to the critics.
Kevin Smith said it best - Don't fuck with the Mouse! by glodene	Aug 25th, 2007 11:36:46 AM
They're nothing more than a bunch of sniveling under-handed snakes always trying to gank a mofo out of their money. Ol' Walt must be spinning in his grave knowing those asshole took over his baby.
Damn, I miss Siskel too by Wed Vid Guy	Aug 25th, 2007 12:06:13 PM
Been watching their archived reviews at www.atthemoviestv.com and I'm loving the back and forth between them. We'll never have a duo like that again.
oops, I meant Jeffrey Lyons by INWOsuxRED	Aug 25th, 2007 01:33:32 PM
nobody noticed because nobody cares.
I noticed. by Vergil	Aug 25th, 2007 01:58:34 PM
But that doesn't mean I care.
I always liked Roger... by Billyeveryteen	Aug 25th, 2007 06:37:39 PM
Sadly, his videogame stance confirms, his views are obsolete. Still, the Mouse IS trying to fuck him.
Roger Ebert and "Art" by ChildOfMen	Aug 25th, 2007 07:45:57 PM
I think the thing that bugs me about his dismissal of games as art is his insistence that the interactive nature of games disqualifies them as art. That is, the fact that people can experience the game in different ways, etc. and that the "creator/artist" can't control how they experience it. That has always just seemed ridiculous to me. There are plenty of examples of "interactivity" for more traditional arts, or at the very least issues where the way the "art" is experienced can be beyond the creator's control. As it is, artists have long played with the idea of creating art that is partially defined by how the "viewer" experiences it..... frankly, some artists dream of this kind of thing, and especially with modern art a lot of artists have tried to play with it.
His reason for saying video games aren't art by futureman3000	Aug 25th, 2007 08:06:23 PM
Because video games aren't art. Continue to cry about it babies.
Wait, so Ebert is to be dismissed... by Alonzo Mosely	Aug 25th, 2007 08:25:13 PM
Because you people disagree on his stance on video games?
Alonzo, Ebert is also dismissed because people disagree by Larry of Arabia	Aug 25th, 2007 08:57:39 PM
with his opinions in a few individual films. I dismiss them because one should never, ever dismiss a reviewer simply because they disagree with you. That's the worst possible side of being a fanboy, the "You don't like The Lord of the Rings? You no longer have credibility on anything you ever say!" Reviews are about the argument for or against a subject. If the reviewer can make a good case for a film the review is valid. Roger Ebert is one of the best, if not the best, at creating a valid argument for or against a film. You may disagree with him 80% of the time but you can't dismiss his reviews because they are all good arguments. When he first got back his arguments were a little weak and the stars flew liberally from his fingers. While reviewing borderline films you could tell by reading his argument that the film was marginal but happy to be back to watching movies again. He was also in a great position to say, "No way in hell am I going to review Daddy Daycare." So you, along with everybody else, disagree with his review of Fight Club or Garfield. Don't dismiss him because you disagree. View the body of his work and his arguments for or against the individual films. (full disclosure - I sort of agree with him on Fight Club. It was great until the last 20 minutes when it fell apart by going too far over the top. Garfield sucked.)
Not Ebert that is dismissed.. by jccalhoun	Aug 25th, 2007 09:00:38 PM
It isn't Ebert that is dismissed, it is the fact that Harry claims that he has always been a supreme class act when the reality is that his attitude towards videogames illustrates that he hasn't always been a class act. Still, I always enjoyed his show even if I always like Siskel better and I hope his health improves.
only classy people like video games by INWOsuxRED	Aug 25th, 2007 09:10:12 PM
what a stupid fucking argument. Someone doesn't think the way you waste time has merit, poor baby.
INWOsuxRed by MignolaFan	Aug 25th, 2007 10:27:48 PM
I definately don't think only classy people play video games going on playstation online or xboxlive let's you know that but I don't see how video games are anymore a waste of time than movies, tv, comics, books or sports. It is all entertainment and every medium have it's gems that teach. Even sports teaches you know leadership and what not right?(I don't like sports but I don't get on my high horse and say it's a waste that some people do)
You tell him by joet88	Aug 25th, 2007 11:01:40 PM
SteveDave. I mean MignolaFan. Hey, I figured I'd go along with the Kevin Smith quotes.
how is saying video games arent an art form a sign of.. by Director17	Aug 26th, 2007 12:06:14 AM
not being a class act? Video games can be an art form..but they aren't yet.
Glad to see I am not alone Larry and INWOsuxRED... by Alonzo Mosely	Aug 26th, 2007 12:42:43 AM
It seems that these days the only way the average person will be happy is if they have their own personal clone to have the same views and opinions on everything... My original point is that it doesn't matter if Ebert dismisses video games as not being an 'art' in the same way as film is. The same way it wouldn't matter if he had a history of giving handjobs to donkeys. To dismiss the man who is the single most influential film writer of his generation (and he is, because he has such widespread appeal via mass medium as well as awards for excellence, no one else has that combination) based on the fact he said something that you take as a slur on your manhood is frankly, friggin' ridiculous... And for the record I think Ebert is like Harry, he has his blind spots and his bad days, he is getting on in age and does bring his generations viewpoint to the table. However, if you look at his body of work, which is huge, most of it is smart and accurate...
Why all the Roeper hate? by microwavable?	Aug 26th, 2007 01:00:18 AM
I'm willing to be most of the anti-Roeper people aren't from Chicago. That's fine - they're the same type of people who didn't turn on to Ebert at first 25 years ago. But read Roeper's column every day and you'll see he's a pretty level-headed, forward-thinking guy. Sure, some of his capsule reviews can be a little metro or douche-y, but even Siskel had a few fogey quirks. And while nothing comes close to Ebert's fantastic wit and humility, Roeper is far better than any of the other big media reviewers out there. And that Ebert debate over whether video games are art always gets the most hilarious fanboy responses. I totally agree with him on that one. That's like calling a single round of golf "art," simply because the course is extremely scenic.
I'd like to know some of your ages who don't like Ebert by GQtaste	Aug 26th, 2007 01:40:06 AM
because of the video game issue? Listen, Roger is a movie guy. He has given his f'ing life to it. So he doesn't like stupid games? Who gives a shit? It's not you so why give a fuck? The legend is of an older generation and when I think back to when I was young it brings me great joy to watch his show w/ Siskel. I felf like these are my people here. They dig movies as much, no more than I. And I really dug them even back then.
Ebert and art by cromwell1666	Aug 26th, 2007 01:58:25 AM
My issue is with people who try to define what constitiutes art for everyone. Saying, "That is not art" is obnoxious. Those folks are ready to tell you what art is not, but they really have no personal understanding of what it is. Why should anyone be allowed to set parameters. I don't play many video games, but if someone is moved by a game in some way, why should it be disqualified as art. Look, guys like Ebert NEED parameters to justify their existance. Ebert needs borders. He needs to color inside the lines or his entire job is pointless. EITHER EVERYTHING HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE ART, OR SOME IDIOT(S) IS SETTING THE BOUNDARIES FOR EVERYONE. Remember, in thepast, society dismissed entire artistic movements because they didn't conform to their understanding of what art should be. This is especially true of the Impresionists and Fauvists. Shakespeare once was on the outside of the parameters too, at a time when poetry was high literature and plays were for the unbathed masses. As time passes, those who set limits become more and more irrelevant. Who is Ebert to be the deciding voice on definitions for everyone?
GQtaste by cromwell1666	Aug 26th, 2007 02:01:19 AM
One thing i've learned in my 29 years is that wisdom and ignorance have no age. Insight has no age, and experience is highly overrated. Why does someones age disqualify their opinion?
Eberts King of Kong review makes me want to rip my by cromwell1666	Aug 26th, 2007 03:26:23 AM
hair out. What irony in the first 2 paragraphs. The presence of which is even more frustrating with his smug picture glaring back at you from the side of the page. Here is Ebert, reviewing a film about video games,the medium he denies is an art, being reminded of a quote from a Walter Matthau film which he feels applies to these two gamers. "You are carrying on in your own lifetime, sir, a way of life that was extinct before you were born." No Ebert, you are the dinosaur, and the condescension you pour on these 2 men is pitiful. BTW, is it not a bit frutrating to anyone else that he denies the artistry of video games but gives 3 stars to a film about video games? Here is the full review. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20 070823/REVIEWS/70817011
Anyone who says video games are not art... by Burning_Tyger	Aug 26th, 2007 06:31:02 AM
...hasn't played Ico or Shadow of the Colossus on Playstation 2. Those games have more artistic merit in the first 10 minutes of the game than many shitfests like transformers have in the whole movie. Still, as a whole, Ebers's collective body of work is solid. He's just an old fuck that needs to retire, if just for his own health.
Metal Gear Solid.. by nolan bautista	Aug 26th, 2007 08:49:43 AM
..on PS1 and PS2 and soon on PS3..awesome works of art..this Hideo fucker knows his palette well..Japanese people are mutants who have evolved in a weird tangent after getting nuked..Anime,giant fucking robots that you ride inside and fight other giant robots,anything made by Sony,Ringu,Mecha-Godzilla(how fucking cool is that?..Godzilla was cool enough but to have robot version of him?!)and their porn..fuck..dont even go there..i jacked off to some Jap porn last night and my eyes still havent returned to normal..they're still slanted from the pleasure..
Video games are not art. by eggart	Aug 26th, 2007 09:19:47 AM
This argument was odd when it started. If ever they will be art, they are not presently. Mostly they are a waste of time. Ebert stated his opinion, and there's not much chance people are going to change his mind. Because he's right. Frankly I've found the whole thing tiresome to keep looking at on his page, because every article he devotes to this is another lost opportunity for him to be writing about films.
Yeah, that mullet headed Donkey Kong pro by INWOsuxRED	Aug 26th, 2007 10:35:47 AM
ahead of his time, and not a dinosaur. How silly of Ebert not to see him for the visionary he is. That film isn't about video games, its about obsessed nut-jobs and people with passion. It wouldn't matter what the object of obsession is. Films about obsession are often very interesting, even if the things people obsess about are silly. You could make an argument that video games are an art form, but since that is subjective, you probably have no hope of ever proving someone's opinion wrong. What I see here, with very little exception, you guys are reacting like someone called your toy collection "dolls" instead of "action figures".
So what is art then? by cromwell1666	Aug 26th, 2007 06:23:03 PM
You guys seem to have such a grasp on what is and what is not art, so what makes something art? What disqualifies video games? RULES TO QUALIFY ART? And who is bestowed with the power to make those rules? And who got to choose who had those powers. If you think you are going to decide for me, you can go to hell.
Disney should use a penis by Bluereader	Aug 26th, 2007 06:45:42 PM
Up or down, it's still all good! Hey, I'm trading marking that! Now any time a pee-pee goes up or down I make money! Yeah for me!
Yay for two stupid sides! by INWOsuxRED	Aug 26th, 2007 06:57:43 PM
No room for subjectivity on these here boards. If you don't agree with everything I say, you can go to hell! Everything you beleive is invalidated because of one opinion!
Boo Fucking Hoo by Vic Twenty	Aug 26th, 2007 07:07:17 PM
I took a massive shit that looks exactly like Martin Landau. Is it art? Why not? Art is subjective. One man's shit is another man's Martin Landau. Let's just leave it at that.
Why ARE video games art? by Punch Man	Aug 26th, 2007 08:37:33 PM
Looking cool isn't an art form.
Vic Twenty by nolan bautista	Aug 26th, 2007 08:48:07 PM
I also took a dump and mine looked like Barbara Bain..coincidence? Me thinks not..Its a sign that Space:1999 will soon be gracing the big screen
I am Batman -- by VaderSabre	Aug 26th, 2007 11:38:38 PM
Well said. Indeed.
aintitcool KILLED siskel/ebert/roeper by atleastwebrits	Aug 26th, 2007 11:39:07 PM
"Thumbs Up/Down" is a fight over buggy whips. Ebert has become unnecessary. You don't need his corny-ass review show to see movie clips. You don't need to wait for Ebert's Holy Opinions. If you're curious about movies, it's all on the internet, long before poor Roger even gets to see the movie.
Roger... one of the last remaining great critics... by Bone-In Foray	Aug 27th, 2007 01:37:15 AM
and here's why. 'Pierrot Le Fou' -a new 35mm print is showing at the Music Box here in Chicago. Being a pretty big Godard fan, I decided to catch this one and so I consulted the local newspapers to see what was what. And sure enough - there was a Roger review of the film and from the late sixties no less. It was favorable enough, but it came with many warnings to anyone who didn't stray from the path of conventional film. I was sold. But... I left the movie disappointed overall...I felt that Roger was wrong in his assessment of the film and that he was perhaps blinded by his own bias. Well, then it turns out that he had actually written a follow up review and it was less than positive - in other words, Rog changed his mind and made it known exactly why and how. As it turns out, it lost some starrage and he criticized the film for being too full of itself. Not only do I agree 100% with the summation, but man - how can you not respect the man for admitting he was wrong? Same with the "Brown Bunny" fiasco. He's a stand up guy with a tremendous base of film knowledge, and I hope he's back to stay. God knows we don't always agree... but who cares? The real question should be - was he fair and balanced? The answer 99% of the time is 'yes'.
Video Game Art by Bone-In Foray	Aug 27th, 2007 01:40:42 AM
I believe Roger has never argued the point that there is no art in a videogame, but rather - a videogame by itself is not a stand-alone work of art, it's a fucking game. Nimrods.
If you're going to say videogames are art by Deathpool	Aug 27th, 2007 03:57:41 AM
Please don't use Final Fantasy. That just makes you look dumb. That said, its all about what you consider art. To Ebert, they are not, and saying he's not 'classy' or whatever because of it is asinine. The man has his opinions, just like we have ours. Disagree with him, okay. Insulting him because of it, retarded.
Art can be in a video game by HornOrSilk	Aug 27th, 2007 04:27:37 AM
But the game itself is not art. Now Ebert, in general, I think is a good, solid movie reviewer; but we all know reviewing movies is not an art form, either ;) He has, of course, earned his respected reputaion in the field. Too bad he is trying to use that to make money on thumbs...
How can films be art? They're just moving pictures... by Hideo Kojima	Aug 27th, 2007 05:50:23 AM
Films are just fun things for people to watch, it's only ENTERTAINMENT not art... lol.. oh wait...
HornOrSilk: "Too bad... by mbeemer	Aug 27th, 2007 09:48:43 AM
...he is trying to use that to make money on thumbs..." Well, he's not only 'trying to make money' off of a trademark HE HELPED ESTABLISH, but he's 'trying to make money' for Siskel's family, too.
He didn't invent the thumb by HornOrSilk	Aug 27th, 2007 01:19:55 PM
Nor the idea of thumbs up or thumbs down... plus, we all know, it isn't that artistic.
"He didn't invent the thumb" by mbeemer	Aug 27th, 2007 02:31:01 PM
Who said he did? He's got the trademark on its use in the fashion that Disney wants to use it. Whether you agree that he should or not is irrelevant.
ART by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 02:55:03 PM
What's really good about the word 'art' is that 'art' is a word like 'love,' or 'god,' or whatever. It transcends so many things.---Tracy Emin
ART 2 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 02:56:41 PM
What is beauty if it is not the refusal of the habitual? What is art if it is not the invitation to shed new light on the world and on oneself?---Helmut Lachenmann
ART 3 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 02:57:47 PM
What I expect from any work of art is that it surprises me, that it violates my customary valuations of things and offers me other, unexpected ones.---Jean Dubuffet
ART 4 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 02:59:47 PM
True art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the creative artist.---Albert Einstein
ART 5 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:11:51 PM
To become truly immortal, a work of art must escape all human limits: logic and common sense will only interfere. But once these barriers are broken, it will enter the realms of childhood visions and dreams.---Giorgio de Chirico
ART 6 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:16:12 PM
The artist's world is limitless. It can be found anywhere, far from where he lives or a few feet away. It is always on his doorstep. ---Paul Strand
ART 7 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:17:11 PM
The artist brings something into the world that didn't exist before, and he does it without destroying something else.----John Updike
ART 8 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:18:34 PM
Rules and models destroy genius and art. ---William Hazlitt
ART 9 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:21:50 PM
My feeling about technique in art is that it has the same value as technique in lovemaking. That is to say, heartfelt ineptitude has its charm and so has heartless skill, but what you really want is passionate virtuosity.---John Barth
ART 10 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:23:20 PM
In the times in which we live it is far too restricting to say that art can only be found in art galleries and not touch people's everyday lives.. I want to use any means that are necessary to communicate to people what I feel about things. There are no rules. And if there are rules, then you may as well break them.---Ken Done
ART 11 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:24:16 PM
In art, all who have done something other than their predecessors have merited the epithet of revolutionary; and it is they alone who are masters. ---Paul Gauguin
ART 12 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:27:35 PM
Everything has an essential beauty, but sometimes it is invisible. I would like people to notice that even what appears to be worthless junk has beauty when we see it in a different light.----Olga Solntseva
ART 13 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:30:10 PM
Art shouldn't be something that you go quietly into an art gallery and dip your forelock and say 'I have to be very quiet, I'm in here amongst the art.' It's here, art's everywhere. It's how you use your eyes. It's about the enjoyment of visual things. And it's certainly not for any one group of people.---Ken Done
ART 14 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:33:08 PM
Are you really sure that a floor can't also be a ceiling? ---M. C. Escher
ART 15 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:34:31 PM
All art is autobiographical. The pearl is the oyster's autobiography. ---Federico Fellini
ART 16 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:35:06 PM
After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well.--Albert Einstein (in the Durban Morning Herald, 8/21/55)
ART 17 by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:35:48 PM
A work of art is a world in itself reflecting senses and emotions of the artist's world.---Hans Hofmann
But by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 03:52:37 PM
who cares what Albert Einstein, Escher and William Hazlitt say? Look at what these snivelling maggot no-names have to say! Eggart-"Video games are not art" bone-in-foray-"a videogame by itself is not a stand-alone work of art, it's a fucking game. Nimrods." I AM BATMAN- "There should be rules to qualify art" This is the last place I'd expect to find people with such shallow visions. I sure hope you people arent involved in any creative field, because you represent the wall in front of progress.
Very cool quotes but it by Punch Man	Aug 27th, 2007 06:51:27 PM
Very cool quotes but it still doesn't change the fact that video games have yet to achieve the level of "art". If video games are art then so is baseball. Explain to me what video games you consider to be art and why.
Please post more quotes that don't prove anything by INWOsuxRED	Aug 27th, 2007 09:36:01 PM
You could make an effective argument that video games are art, but you still haven't. That still doesn't mean Ebert has no class for thinking it isn't art. Looking up a bunch of art quotes still doesn't make up for suggesting that Ebert couldn't like a movie that looks at people playing video games because he doesn't think video games are an art form. I think looking up so many quotes just supports the people who suggest that the gamers are just angry that their hobby isn't being validated, so you go on to suggest Albert Einstein and M.C. Escher are video game as art proponents, which is something that could never be proven.
INWOsuxRED by cromwell1666	Aug 27th, 2007 11:57:59 PM
Those quotes represent theidea that, if anything, arbitrary borders are a hindrance. Ebert's definition of art isridiculous and his application negating artistry in video games doesn't even make sense using his own logic. You only determine the outcome and path a game travels by parameters already created by the people behind it. The options are finite, and your choices are finite. But Im not here to defend video games status as art, but to make sure that mouth-breathers DO NOT have the ability to define what art is for ayone. I am not limiting opinions. The only one I will negate is the ignorant "Thats not art" comment that is almost always spoken by sub-standard minds. Video games are just the vehicle for my argument, as I don't even play them. I've spent too much time in public art museums, hearing people who prob go once a decade dismissing modern art, or anything they don't appreciate as "not art." Why not? Because some guy doesn't think so? Art must be defined by the individual, because if its not, then its being defined by one of the weaker intellectual stratas of our culture. You can have your collective view, but I see it as intrusive and a spiritual hindrance as well. My argument is- YOU cannot make the determination for others that video games are not art. When you say its not, you are building walls. The quotes above are about knockingdown walls and breaking rules.
BTW by cromwell1666	Aug 28th, 2007 12:00:34 AM
If you can't see that the artists above would hold the same viewpoint, then there is no hope for you as you lack insight and cannot see depth beyond what is obvious to your limited abilities to understand.
PunchMan by cromwell1666	Aug 28th, 2007 12:09:20 AM
Not the point. I do not say IS or IS NOT. I want to stop people like you from creating limiting definitions. You say "it still doesn't change the fact that video games have yet to achieve the level of "art"." That is a definition that is confined by YOUR limitations to perceive. Don't plague te open minded with it.
easy now by Punch Man	Aug 28th, 2007 03:42:07 PM
There is nothing close minded in what I said. I Am an artist for Christ's sake. All I said is that if video games are art then give examples. Simple.
Are board games art? by Punch Man	Aug 28th, 2007 03:50:48 PM
Furthermore no one is saying, Ebert included, that no one can believe that video games are art. They, THE INDIVIDUALS, are deciding, FOR THEMSELVES, that it is not art.
"...and can never be." by Billyeveryteen	Aug 28th, 2007 05:28:12 PM
Douches that say this, Ebert included, are the height of arrogance, and narrow vision. Die.
Art by HornOrSilk	Aug 29th, 2007 03:18:53 AM
Clearly has definitions. It is something. If there was no definition for what it is, everything would be art. If everything is art, then nothing is art, because, it becomes a word with no meaning.
HornOrSilk by cromwell1666	Aug 29th, 2007 10:22:12 AM
"If everything is art, then nothing is art"- Please explain how you can arrive at this conclusion. I have taken logic courses in the Past, but this one is a new one. Please give a tangible example to prove this brilliant statement. Art transcends definitions and has potential based on the vision and depth of the indivivual. Either EVERYTHING has the potential, or some dickhead is making determinations for everyone. If art has a definition, it falls into the same realm as words such as intangable, unknowable, beyond, transcendental and infinite.
Wow, it's amazing how Hollywood can ruin everything by kirttawesomio	Aug 29th, 2007 12:12:14 PM
Unbelievable. Simply, unreal.
Hey I know where they can put their THUMBS up. by kirttawesomio	Aug 29th, 2007 12:15:45 PM
HEYYY_YO!
It's funny, I hadn't read this before watching the show by Big Jim	Aug 29th, 2007 12:52:00 PM
last week. I was only half paying attention and just thought I missed the Thumbs for the first movie. Then later they showed what was in theatres and usually it shows a Thumb (usually only Roeper's and not the rating from the guest host who had done that show). I thought that weird. That's when I started to pay attention. They actually did "I recommend it", "Me too". If the Thumbs stay away the show will be so far gone from its origins, and with the lack of Ebert, they may as well call it "Richard Roeper's Reel Roundup" or something equally lame. Becaus that's what it will become. I'm not a fan of Roeper. If Siskel hated a movie, he told us why. He explained it. Ebert was the same. Roeper is usually "this sucks, it's garbage" but does not seem to give reasons why other than he felt it was a waste of his time. Roeper has never really been a good partner for Ebert in that he owes his job to Ebert. They may disagree but never the way Siskel & Ebert would. And most of the guest hosts with Roper these days are probably, at least in the back of their minds, auditioning for Ebert's chair, and don't want to risk offending Roeper. I doubt it would be Roeper's decision, but I'm sure he'll have a say.
Ebert just seems to confirm the story by Rupee88	Aug 29th, 2007 06:18:39 PM
I don't get how this is news...he is just basically agreeing with the AP story. It's a business negotiation and they haven't come to an agreement..BFD...I think Harry is just posting this to enhance his relationship with Ebert.
Rupee88 by Punch Man	Aug 29th, 2007 11:28:47 PM
What seems to have happened was that Ebert was allowing the use of THUMBS while negotiations were going on. The AP story stated that he had wanted to withhold the use.

Talkbacks

Much ado about Thumbs - Ebert, Roeper, Disney and THUMBS all caps!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks