Chic, IL Any Word Round the Campfire re: Ebert's Reaction?

Last time round, some fan in Chicago asked Ebert what he thought of TPM after the screening. I was wondering whether anyone from the Chicago fanforce was at the screening today and if so, whether they managed to ask Ebert his reaction towards the film and digital projection?

 

IS THIS AL WITH THE SHADES?

Any idea when these reviews are are going to be or can i go to bed?

8 DAYS!!!!

 

Channel 7 was teasing Ebert's review yesterday for their 4:30 news, but I missed it.

The Channel 9 guy loved it.

 

hey i have found the spider man review and under it it says that the star wars review will be atfer May 11. he's the link.
http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html

 

For anyone who is spoiled and has read the Ebert review...

Is it safe for us unspoiled people to read it?

 

I read Ebert's review today. Theres the usual paragraph of plot description that i skipped over (dont think there was anything absolutely spoiling in there unless you're someone who is on a complete media block....but if that were the case then you probably wouldnt be on the internet)and the review itself is freakin ridiculous and another case where movie critics that don't understand how much people love star wars feel the need to bash it and be waay too critical of it. "The New Guy" and AOTC both get 2 Stars!!!! And "The Scorpion King" gets 2 and a half? The double standard is ridiculous.....anway....if you've been staying away from spoilers and you've only been watching the official stuff (the commercials and trailers is all i've seen) then the Ebert review is indeed ok for you to read.

 

Thanks!

 

Yes - part of the problem is Ebert has an issue with digital projection - yes it has less information than a film print - but some of that film "information" is grain. I mean DVD's have less information than laserdiscs, but they look better.

Of coure a pristine print will probably top a digital projector - but how many prints doyou see (even first run) that are perfect? And if they are, arethey still after a week or two? I went t one of the first showings of ET when it was rereleased and it already had some sloppy splices in it! His talk reminds me of the folks who kept complaining that CD was not nearly as rich as vinyl.

DLP, like CD, provides a consistent durable presentation.

I think he really needs to get past his embracing of an older technology.

 

Yeah. 3/4 of the review was him complaining about the print he saw and then him processing that information in his fat head. He thinks the fact that it was transfered from digital video over to film is the reason its grainy. Here's another thing.....If AOTC gets two stars and that stupid ass movie with that kid from Road Trip gets two stars then why is he saying he is anxious to see AOTC again on digital video? His review says that the dialogue was bad but the action and special effects were good. If the movie is beneath you as a critic then why are you going to see it again? Just to look at the pretty pictures? I can tell you he isn't going to be lining up to see the Scorpion King again. Anyway, critics are gonna be ignorant about what love Star Wars brings to folk. That isnt going to change, so i'll spare Ebert my wrath........but i haven't heard Richard Roeper say anything about it yet, and that guy already has a kick in the nuts coming to him....give me a reason Roeper!!!!! Give me a reason!

 

Ebert is ridiculous. All the reasons he loved TPM mean nothing now I guess... he gave that movie 3.5 stars! He was saying that the human element was a bit lacking, but it basically didn't matter to him... he just loved the visuals! Now this movie with better visuals and SFX sequences AND a better human element comes out and he gives it a bad review. What a joke. How can you trust his reviews when there is no consistency?

I'm starting to think he gives good and bad reviews for the wrong reasons. I believe the case may be that he is not in synch with Lucas' dream for all digital: from camera to projector. This has come up before, and I believe that is the center of this negative attack... he doesn't support digital cinema because he loves film. That's fine Robert... we'll just leave you in the past. Goodbye you old fossil.

 

This is the same guy who likes Jar Jar.

I, myself, give it 3 stars. It did dissapoint me in some areas but it did well enough by cramming a story in the 2+hours. True, the print was not in the best of shape.

 

I'm torn on this one...

On one level, I agree that digital projection is sacrificing a lot of film quality for a more consistent image, but I don't think it's worth it. In a few years, there may be a sufficient compression/play rate that allows for DVD/Laserdisc quality projection on such a large scale, but not right now.

However, I don't understand what this has to do with the film. I can't take issue with any of his comments about dialogue or plot since I haven't seen it yet, but I do think he was off-base by holding his issues with digital projection against the film (to his credit, he did mention that he'd probably like the film more if he saw it under ideal digital circumstances.) This is disappointing because I generally love reading Ebert's reviews: he's one of a very few critics who seem to walk into nearly every film hoping to see something good... as fun as his trash reviews can be, I think he much prefers being able to talk about good films (witness his Great Films series on his website for over 100 pieces of evidence to support this.) But lately, in this case and with Spider-Man, his perspective on special effects seems to have become skewed. I was with him 100% when he talked about "Gladiator's" crappy special effect sequences since the film was presented very straightforward: we were supposed to be seeing Rome, and we saw a bad rendering of Rome. But I don't understand how Ebert can compliment films like "The Wizard of Oz," "Gamera," and even "Basquiat" for having special effects or sets that didn't seem perfect because they weren't meant to be (ok, I can see that) but then holds the same thing _against_ "Spider-Man" when its effects and general theme/mood certainly falls more into the "flight of fancy" tone of the aforementioned films than into the "realistic" atmosphere of a film like "Gladiator."

I was lucky enough to meet Roger Ebert three years ago when we were all in line for Episode I (ahh, memories.) He strolled past us on Sunday afternoon with a shopping bag from a department store in his hand, took in what was going on, and walked off. About two hours later, he returned with a small camera crew and interviewed most of us (there was less than 20 of us at the time.) After recording some comments into the camera, he stuck around for about half an hour talking to me and a few others about all kinds of movies except Star Wars (my memory's not perfect, but I recall discussing random neat stuff about "Citizen Kane," the relationship -or lack thereof- between "The Matrix" and the recent Columbine incident, and he -or someone- mentioned a new film coming out from the guy who directed "Se7en" that had a lot of people excited.)

Anyway, enough yapping. My point, and I'm pretty sure I had one around here somewhere, is that while I generally really enjoy Ebert's very open view on films and filmmaking, I think he's taken a big left turn on a fairly important aspect of two films in as many weeks. Perhaps his ideas and view toward film are changing into something significantly different than they have been for so long, who knows? Personally, I'm hoping that he's just been getting over a particularly nasty cold or something.

-Le Penguin
I guess we were all guilty, in a way. We all killed him, we all skinned him, and we all got a complimentary bumper sticker that said "I helped skin Bob."

 

Hi everyone! I'm new here -- the name's Paul. I stopped by the Force line at McClurg a couple of times last week and showed up just as they were putting tix onsale for the 9:30AM Thursday show.

I am a writer, so I tend to say quite a bit. I hope you find the things I have to say interesting. This one's regarding Ebert's review, which is a total personality disorder.

First of all, he pans the movie. He calles it "a technological exercise that lacks juice and delight." Oh I see. However, earlier in the same review, Roger says he looks forward to seeing it again, possibly under better projection circumstances, and seems to be looking forward even more to enjoying the movie on the future DVD.

Isn't it generally the case that if a movie is bad (and I'm talking bad in BATTLEFIELD EARTH terms here), you don't want to revisit it? Wouldn't it be safe to assume you would not want to see that film again?

Ebert also says, "I have to see the film again to do it justice," which can only mean he feels it *deserves* justice.

Tell you what Roger. Next time, why not wait until *after* you've seen it in a format you're happy with before you give us your review, eh? The whole notion of panning a film that apparently deserves justice at the same time is just backwards!

Ebert's is the latest in a string of reviews I've read (mostly from critics who feel a need to be as bitchy as possible) who complain that there is too much "talk talk talk" in the first hour of the movie. Um....excuse me, but aside from the opening five minutes of the original STAR WARS, isn't it pretty much all talk until the Millennium Falcon gets to the Death Star, which occurs after the first hour? I don't think Artoo and Threepio walking around on Tatooine and being captured by Jawas is exactly charged with adrenaline and excitement. Neither are the sequences where Luke meets the droids, broods with Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru, and then meets Obi-Wan. The Death Star committee meeting is a meeting! It's TALK! Obi-Wan teaching Luke on the Falcon, and Han's dismissal of the Force is TALK! For gawd's sake -- the STAR WARS films are not meant to be roller-coaster rides from start to finish.

So, the dialogue ain't the greatest. Big whoop. This isn't Shakespeare. Lucas says his ideas for these films were rooted in the old serials of the '40s. Were those serials brimming with Academy Award caliber screenwriting? No! Were those types of movies filled with flawless introspective dialogue? No!

As far as the love story being cliched -- once again, Lucas is rooting his tale in mythology. Why shouldn't Anakin and Padme's words of love to each other be words that have been said and heard a zillion times before? Why are people expecting that the love story here break some sort of new ground -- especially when Lucas' intention is to create a story that already feels familiar to the audience? It's OK by me for love to be corny and cliched in the popcorn movies.

Ebert seemed to review for two types of people -- those who love STAR WARS movies with a passion, and those who will go see it on passing fancy. As far as I am concerned, all that matters to me are the opinions of those who already love STAR WARS. I don't mean the ones who love it obsessively either. Just the ones who love it enough to care. So far, the general fan consensus says that there is alot in this movie that knocked their socks off. That's good enough for me!

Paul

 

Well said, Paul.

Myself, I get arfully frustrated when people start to compare these prequels with the original three. Everyone talks about how awful the acting was in TPM, and how awful it looks in AOTC. at which point, I remind everyone that Mark Hamill is no Laurence Olivier. And they just sort of go, "oh, well, whatever." I think we all have a perception of star wars - and I'm talking the original three movies - that is skewed. We look back on them fondly and we forgive a lot of the crap that's in those movies on the basis of nostalgia. As with what Paul said, ANH is dredafully boring until they manage to rescue the Princess.

And so I just wonder what it is that critics are looking for in these new prequels. Their ideas of what Star Wars is - and how, for example, TPM and AOTC don't live up to that grand tradition - are based on 20 year old impressions. I really appreciated reading the archived ESB review from the NY Times that went up on the main theforce.net page last week.

After TPM came out, a friend of mine said that she wasn't surprised that no one was really liking it. Expectations were jsut too high, and short of featuring the resurrection of Christ on screen, most people weren't going to be happy. I guess I'll forgo the immaculate conception theme from TPM here. But regardless, I jsut want to know what these critics actually want out of these films. I'd like to see more of them review it for what it does present, and not what they wish it did.

~dan

 

Ebert was on today. He just pissed and moaned how AOTC looks like crap if it's not on a digital screen because it was transferred..he also was whining about Yoda. This is probably going to be one of the best Star Wars films ever in my opinion. He was complaining also of too much dialogue and other petty dumb stuff while Roeper was sitting there defending the film. Ebert is an ass. He is the same buffoon who gave that piece of crap excuse for a movie Blair Witch Project (which I WALKED OUT OF HALF WAY THROUGH) four stars. What a goof.

 

Overall, this thread's at a bit of a deadlock:

-most of us haven't seen the film yet, so issues with professional critics' thoughts on plot, special effects, acting, etc are (or at least should be) non-existent at this point.

-Be we fans of Ebert's or not, everyone here seems to be in agreement of his uncharacteristically single-minded review. So anything else written about it before we see the film for ourselves will pretty much just be preaching to the choir.

Now, as for what this thread will look like (or if it'll even exist) after May 16th, that's up for grabs. Those of us who were around on the old boards three years ago know that there won't be a "your thoughts on EpII" or "my impressions" thread after the film opens...

There will be about three thousand. Every aspect, every line, every unanswered question, every good point, bad point, and all points in-between will get their own thread, and that's without even getting into the inevitable "is it better/worse than >blank<?"

Personally, I'm rather looking forward to it. I haven't really stretched my fanboy muscles in the past year. I'm suddenly nostalgic for the good old days when JJ and I used to dominate nearly every thread, sometimes even the entire board...

One final point: any issues anyone has with The Blair Witch Project may be put to me in person next Wednesday afternoon/evening/overnight while we're in line. Just make sure you don't have any plans for the next half hour or so.

-Le Penguin
"Everything our parents said was good is bad. Sun, milk, red meat... college."

 

EBERT WAS at the charity screening. There must have been something there he liked to come back again 5 days later.

 

Ebert probably went to help raise money for a good cause, that's all.


I find it hard to believe that Lucas wouldn't want critics to see his movie the way it was meant to be seen -- digitally. Ebert saw the video-to-film transfer, which I think was a big mistake (on someone's part -- either LFL or 20th Century Fox). And his complaints about the quality of the transfer make me wonder if my experience will be the same. Ugh.


Now, as for his review -- I take it with a grain of salt. I've loved many movies he has panned, and vice versa. Most of the reviews I've read for Episode II have been extremely positive, so I'm thinking the majority of reviewers can't be wrong!

 

More fuel for the fire... so much for this thread being deadlocked:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-ebert14.html

-Le Penguin
"I want them alive!"