"People looking for things to hate will find them"

So if I say I don't agree with him and I say I like said movie he did not. It does not mean I'm less imformed.

No, but the fact that you say while shooting the breeze and he says it as his work in life does.

But it has nothing to do with how well informed you are as to how good a movies is.

I didn't say that. As always, I merely said that it would make common sense to rely on the more informed person to tell you how good a movie is than to rely on an uninformed person.

So what big deal he has seen more movies.

So he has perspective. How can you recognize an homage if you've never seen the movie that the homage is being made to?
How can you tell if one director did a better or worse job than another if you've only seen one? That is, how do you make comparisons if you don't know anything to compare something with. The more movies he sees and analyzes, the more things he'll have to compare new movies with. This is a good thing, as it gives the reviewer a chance to be more precise.

But anyway, it seems like you are confusing the weight of a critic's opinion with how personally true one find's said opinion. There isn't necessarily a correlation. For instance, literary critics consider Milton's Paradise Lost a classic. I personally didn't enjoy the book, but at the same time I can recognize that they, having spent a lot more time in that field than I, know what their talking about more than I do (read: there opinions are better informed).

You can like or not like anything you want. People always will, and it doesn't matter. But that's not the same thing as dismissing the work of critics as equal to anyone's opinions. They do put a considerable amount of work into producing their work, and thusly do become better informed about those topics. Period.

 

And I will say it again for the last time a critic is not a more informed person.

Edit: The more movies he sees and analyzes, the more things he'll have to compare new movies with. This is a good thing, as it gives the reviewer a chance to be more precise.

And this is why I have problems with critics. If I'm reading a review for let's say Dare Divel. What make that person think I want to know what they thought about Spider-man. If I want to know he's opinion on that I will read what he said about that movie. I don't need the critic to analyez a movie for me I will do that myself. I don't need him to compare Spider-man with Dare Devil. Spider-man has nothing to do with the Dare Devil movie any ways.

Edit2: That's why I don't care what critics have to say any more. Because instead of just giving me a review of the movie they saw they have to add in a review from another movie.

 

Exactly! Critics jobs aren't to draw comparisons. Droning on and on about their unsolisited opinion. It's unimaginative, and psuedo-intellectual. And I'm not interested.

Just tell about the movie. You're trivial insights into Tom Cruise's teeth don't matter.

 

That was a good post jabba-wocky.

anidanami, while I'll agree there are quite a few critics who are terrible and their reviews don't even get to the point, I would still say critics in general (especially the well-established critics) are very informed and some of their opinions hold at least some value (doesn't mean we should follow them blindly, yet, it doesn't mean they are completely worthless either)

However, whenever we make our own opinions about something, it is usually based on comparing it to something else is it not? You love AOTC because you are comparing it to other movies which you feel are not as good as AOTC. I did not like The Patriot because I felt Braveheart did everything much better in every category. If I were to never have seen Braveheart and the only movie I saw in my life was The Patriot, I would look upon it more favorably, but since I have seen other things and can compare, my standards change a little.

 

However, whenever we make our own opinions about something, it is usually based on comparing it to something else is it not? You love AOTC because you are comparing it to other movies which you feel are not as good as AOTC. I did not like The Patriot because I felt Braveheart did everything much better in every category. If I were to never have seen Braveheart and the only movie I saw in my life was The Patriot, I would look upon it more favorably, but since I have seen other things and can compare, my standards change a little.

Careful. By that logic, you are in danger of not liking BRAVEHEART if you feel a future movie does everything better than BRAVEHEART. You are always in danger of eventually disliking your favorite due to a better made movie coming out, it that is your stance.

 

All of this is a bunch of BS.

This isn't about whether or not SW fans should criticize the SW films.

They should.

This is about whether or not you make it your entire focus.

All this talk about how bashers are this, and gushers are that is all just a bunch of BS.

We ARE all SW fans, and the terms "bashers" and "gushers" and as now introduced by the esteemed Phillip, "homers" are just shorthand slandar created in an attemtp to make people feel better about their own personal opinions.

On one hand, if I think the prequels suck, then I might think the people who say it's great are "gushers" who would never ever question anything George Lucas crapped onto a plate, so I wouldn't have to worry about the possibility that I was hastey in making my decision.

On the other hand, if I think the prequels rule, then I might think the people who say it "sucked" are "bashers" who are unable to appreciate what Lucas is doing, so I wouldn't have to worry about the possibility that I was hastey in making my decision.

Is there anyone reading this that would agree they are a gusher or a basher? Or did we all put a lot of thought into our personal opinions of the prequels?

My point is, why call ourselves or others "gushers" or "bashers" or for Phillip, "Homers" when none of us are accurately described by these labels?

It's high time we grew up as a fan society and put this ludicrous, counterproductive and childish dynamic of these forums to rest.

 

who would never ever question anything George Lucas crapped onto a plate

Now, would this be done with CGI or with a model?

 

Both, with practical pyrotechnics.

 

anidanami, we've been aruging about this for years now.

All those things that you personally dislike about critics is fine. But to presume that anyone off the street has just as much credibility in their field as they, who've been working their most of their adult lives is just disrespectful of their careers. At least that's how I feel about it.

So yes, they're often wrong. Sometimes, they're biased, overly critical, or poorly written. But that is, nevertheless, what those people do as a job. And we have to assume that if they have any competency at all, they at least somewhat better informed and have somewhat more credibility in their area of expertise than someone outside of that field does.

 

But to presume that anyone off the street has just as much credibility in their field as they, who've been working their most of their adult lives is just disrespectful of their careers. At least that's how I feel about it.

No it's not. And someone who has seen movies. (I'm not talking about someone who has seen a movie for the 1st time) But someone who has seen many movies and is not a critic is just as informed as the critic. The critic does not have more credibility then that person. He is just able to let more people see his opinion. He is first and from must a write. And like all writes who write something for a newspaper they are giving there side of the story. But to say theres it the better side. Well I'm sorry that's just not ture.

Edit: To end this here is way a critics don't have more credibility then someone on the street.

Take someone who listens to punk music ever day. In fact they have been istening to it for a really long time. Then a critic who does not really listen to that music writes a review saying how Avril Lavigen is punk.

Well the person who has been listening to punk all his life steps and says she is not.

Who is right? The guy who reviews all kinds of music. Or the guy who listens to punk music all the time and knows what punk music really is? Who has more credibility? I can tell you right know the critic has no credibility over the guy who has listened to punk all his life.

 

Again, I repeat. I merely said more credible or informed. That does not mean their opinion is "better" "right" "wrong" or anything of the sort. I think this is wher we are getting hung up. Understand that this is not what I'm saying. All I've said is that their opinion is more credible/better informed. That doesn't mean anything beyond what it says.

About your example you're most certainly right. You would have more credibility/be better informed in that situation because you've dealt with rock music longer and in a manner that is more in-depth. Just like a movie critic has a better informed opinion about movies because they've been dealing with movies longer and in a manner that is more in-depth.

Don't you see you used the logic I've been using all along? Assuming equal competency, the person who spends more time/effort will be better. That's a very basic concept. I don't know why you persist to disagree with it just because it's "critics" who are a part of "pop culture."

Well forget all of that for a minute. Just look at it this way. Roger Ebert, the person, has probably watched more movies than you. Roger Ebert, the human being, has been looking at movies in a way that's more in-depth than most people (though not necessarily you) for many years. Therefore, one should think that Roger Ebert has a bit more credibility than someone whose only been watching movies casually for the last 15 years.

I really have no idea why we are still discussing this. Especially since you just used my arguments in an attempt to prove your point. I'm not saying that critics are good, that they are unbiased, that their opinions are right, that they are intelligent or even that they're nice people. They might very well be the opposite of all those things. But they all deal with a lot of movies, for a long time, in manner that's more in-depth and intensive than the casual movie-goer from the general public. And that fact means something. If it doesn't, then what's the point of learning at all--whether by education or experientally?

You don't have to like them or agree with them. Much of the time I don't either. But at least give them the respect they're due.

 

But to say because he has seen more movies that he knows what he is talking about and is more well informed as to what a good movie is is not right.

I can tell you right know the critic has no credibility over the guy who has listened to punk all his life.

Don't you see you're contradicting yourself? First you basically say someone who's more educated in movies hasn't any more credibility regarding movies than just anyone on the street. Then you say, someone who listened to punk music all his life (in other words is more educated in punk music) has greater credibility that someone who listened less.
Yes, someone on the street can be more informed than a critic, but saying anyone is just as informed is silly.

 

Roger Ebert, the person, has probably watched more movies than you. Roger Ebert, the human being, has been looking at movies in a way that's more in-depth than most people (though not necessarily you) for many years. Therefore, one should think that Roger Ebert has a bit more credibility than someone whose only been watching movies casually for the last 15 years.

Nope sorry he does not have more credibility. He is just a write for a newspaper. He is giving his side of the story that's it. He is not more informed then you or I. The people who worked on the movie would have more credibility then Roger Ebert. Ebert is a goor newspaper writer. That dose not make him have a better opinion about what a good movie is. No matter how long he has watch movies. I mean 15 years. There are people who have watch more movies then he has and they are not critics. What I'm seeing here is that we giving critics more credit then they need. We give pop cutlure more credit then it needs.

Just because Ebert say such and such movie is a movie he did not like does not mean other will not like it ether. And what you are saying is that critics do have more credibility. I was showing you they don't. Because they are not movie makers, they are not people who make music. They are write who were giving a job because they were good at saying why they did not like said movie. But by no means does that mean they have more credibility then you or I.


Don't you see you're contradicting yourself? First you basically say someone who's more educated in movies hasn't any more credibility regarding movies than just anyone on the street. Then you say, someone who listened to punk music all his life (in other words is more educated in punk music) has greater credibility that someone who listened less.

No what I'm saying is a critic is a write. He took writiing class. To learn to write. He learn how to do that.

What is being said is because critics spean so much time with music, or books, or movies that they know more and are better informed then someone from off the street. That's just not ture. So what if some critic listens to all kinds of music. That does not give him credibility. Because some critics will end up saying things such as Simple Plane is a punk band.

So when you say that they have more credibility. What because they spend more time with something? I spend lot of time progarmming. That does not mean I have more credibility in knowing what the best looking web sites are. Just because some one races cars all the time does not give them more credibility in telling people what the best car is.


If I was working in a company and I'm telling about the sales for this year. I need credibility. But when I'm giving my opinion of a movie my credibility is just as good as Roger Ebert. So when I hear this. Well what critics back up what you say. Why do I need a critic to back up something I say about a movie? That kind of gets ready of the whole reason who make opinions of why we like some movies over others. Or as to why we like this player for this team more then the other player. Or why we like this kind of music over the other kind.

 

This is about whether or not you make it your entire focus.
The problem is...too many of us "fans" (some of you I'm not sure fit) focus most of our attention of what is wrong about SW. To me, being a fan should be more about sharing the things we enjoy about SW with other people...not sounding like a clone army of "Comic Book Guy" from The Simpsons.

I am more likely to be called a "gusher" by someone (because I try to focus on the positive aspects) yet I have opinions that are different from GL's creative vision...and you know, that's fine 9it's HIS movie)

shorthand slandar created in an attempt to make people feel better about their own personal opinions.
Go-Mer-Tonic...couldn't agree with you more! Something that has bothered me for a long time is the fact that as a SW community, there isn't any one thing to identify all of us with. We've been factioned off into "Bashers" "Gushers" "Purists" "...Defense Force" "...Haters" "...Supporters" "EU" "Purists"(a name I find highly misleading) and a variety of other shorthand nicknames to try and associate our beliefs in SW. When the fact is...regardless of our "certain point of view" our collective goal should be that we are love SW.

And for all you LOTR types out there...that translates into that the race of men (and women) SW fans divided and leaderless, searching for The Return of the King

 

But when I'm giving my opinion of a movie my credibility is just as good as Roger Ebert.

Your opinion is just as good as Roger Ebert's, but he has more experience and knowledge in his field than you or I, I'm afraid. No one wakes up as the head reviewer of the Chicago Sun Times, star of a weekly TV show, a Pulitzer prize winner, and probably one of the most famous movie critics in the country without working hard for it, proving themselves, and having displayed well their knowledge and experience in what they do.

If I wanted a "yes" or "no" answer whether a movie will be good or bad, I would go to my friends. If I wanted a more thorough analysis of Antonioni's "L'Avventura", I would read Ebert's articles, not some guy off the street who would just shrug blankly and say "I don't like foreign films". (Not everyone is like that of course, I'm just using an example of how a more informed opinion is beneficial) This does not mean Ebert's opinion of a movie is better or worse, just that for those who seek more info or depth, he would be the guy to go to and not some hot dog vendor on the corner of Market street.

anidanami, using your argument, do I have the same credibility as Steven Spielberg or George Lucas? According to your argument that everyone has the same credibility, I think I have just as much credibility as those big time directors. All they did was spend some extra years in film school and they have money, but all three of us are the same when it comes to being credible. I think my Uncle Frank is more credible than Stanley Kubrick. (I'm kidding of course -- just using it for the sake of argument)

 

anidanami, using your argument, do I have the same credibility as Steven Spielberg or George Lucas? According to your argument that everyone has the same credibility, I think I have just as much credibility as those big time directors. All they did was spend some extra years in film school and they have money, but all three of us are the same when it comes to being credible. I think my Uncle Frank is more credible than Stanley Kubrick. (I'm kidding of course -- just using it for the sake of argument)

I'm not talking about Lucas, or Spielberg. What part of Ebert does not have more credibility when giving any opinion does any one not understand. He writes for a newspaper. He puts what he thought about the movie. But hsi word is not the final word. Yeah so what if he says the acting in AOTC was not good. What does that mean? It means he did not like it. That's it I see it and I don't agree with him. In fact I disagree with him a good part of the time. So what if he won awards. That does not make him a better critic in knowing what makes a good movie. He is not a film maker. He's a writer. He writes about what he thinks and feels. he gives his opinion. He's is no better then yours or many.

What I'm trying to get across here which no one seems to get yet is that just because your a critic for a newspaper, or a mag or what ever does not mean you have better credibility. It just means you may or may not be a good write. If I take what ever one has said here a critic who has listen to music longer then me must know more about what good music is and also must have better credibility. I'm sorry but that's just not true. I do not hold critics up as people who know more. Because they don't know more then me or you about movies or music. They have tastes to. They have there opinions and they are no higher then any one elses.

I don't hold critics up to high standered and pop culture sucks. Again if critics are so good and pop culture is what I need to go by then by all counts I should think that rappers such as Eminem are really good when all they can do is talk about killing there mother's and wifes. That's what critics think is good music. I shoudd be saying that realty shows are really great. I'm sorry but they are not good that are trash. I don't live but what they say and I will not think of them as having a higher opinion then I. If that's disrespectful of their careers well to bad.

I live by what many people such as AdamBertocci put it. They are good writers. As for pick good movies out that I will like well the are right 5% of the time.

 

No what I'm saying is a critic is a write. He took writiing class. To learn to write. He learn how to do that.
Yeah, lot of critics start as a writer. But someone, who has been a film critic for years surely (at least if he does his job thoroughly) is more experienced and more informed about movies than the average moviegoer. So whatever you say, for me R.E. has more credibility than you. I mean if i had to choose which one to watch out of 2 films i haven't seen yet, then R.E.'s opinion would count more than yours, there would be a certain chance i'd make the wrong choice though.

I spend lot of time progarmming. That does not mean I have more credibility in knowing what the best looking web sites are.
No, but if you would be a designer, you would. And that wouldn't mean you're always right, but it would mean that what you say is worth considering.

 

*sigh*

For the last time, no one is saying they are better than you. No one is saying their opinions are better than your opinions. No one is saying that they are smarter. No one has said that they are right. No one has said that you should listen to them. No one has said that they should be held up to a higher standard or in greater esteem. No one said they can pick good movies.

But that doesn't mean they don't have more credibility than you.

Those are two completely separate things. We have said that he has more credibility as a film critic, and only as a film critic than you do. The fact is, whether you like it or not, you probably couldn't submit a film review you made to the Chicago Sun Times and get it published. You probably couldn't win a Pulitzer with it. If you're like most of us, you probably coudldn't win a Pulitzer for anything at all. Why? Because you (and we) don't have the skill or the credibility to make those kind of accomplishments as of yet.

But again, as you say, and as we've said, that doesn't make Ebert's opinion better. It doesn't make him any more right. It doesn't make him smarter or a better person. It doesn't mean he should be idolized, put on a pedestal, obeyed, or listened to at all.

But it does mean we should respect his accomplishments, and acknowledge the fact that he knows more in his area of expertise than we do. Just like a race car driver knows more about driving race cars. Just like you, an avid punk rock fan, knows more about punk rock music. Just like all of us on these boards, SW fans, know more about SW. And just like movie producers know more about making movies.

Do you understand what we are trying to tell you? You're absolutely right about making your own decisions and thinking for yourself. But that's a different thing than disrespecting someone's career and work. How upset would you be if someone that never listened to rock before told you that they know as much about it as you do? It's the same kind of thing.

 

I'm not talking about Lucas, or Spielberg. What part of Ebert does not have more credibility when giving any opinion does any one not understand. He writes for a newspaper. He puts what he thought about the movie. But hsi word is not the final word. Yeah so what if he says the acting in AOTC was not good. What does that mean? It means he did not like it. That's it I see it and I don't agree with him. In fact I disagree with him a good part of the time. So what if he won awards. That does not make him a better critic in knowing what makes a good movie. He is not a film maker. He's a writer. He writes about what he thinks and feels. he gives his opinion. He's is no better then yours or many.

I view any professional in their field, whether it be a critic (the respected ones at least), a sports player, or a film director as individuals who excel in their field and are generally more knowledgable about what they do than the average person on the street.

We have been agreeing on something though anidanami -- that Ebert's words are not the final words. That is what I said earlier. He has the same right to an opinion as you or I do.

However, what I disagree with you on is that film critics in general have worthless opinions and are just paid to absent-mindedly spew forth their ideas onto paper.
I have personally followed Ebert's reviews for over seven years (basically when they first started appearing online) and I would not have wasted my time with his writing if I found them to be worthless. I actually learn things from him. If you want to see more evidence of his knowledge about cinema, I would recommend you rent either the Citizen Kane, Casablanca, or Dark City DVDs and listen to Roger Ebert's audio commentaries. Just listen to him for 15 minutes and I guarantee you'll see that he is not just simply a paid writer of opinions -- he breathes film and is more passionate about it than some 11-year old kid into Spongebob Squarepants. (They both have the right to say whatever they want about a given movie, but Ebert will have something more substantial to say) As for the DVDs, he goes into incredible depth regarding things as small as lighting, framing, writing, and even the way an actor tilts his body to convey something -- to bigger things like the film's socio-political-economic context, historical significance, symbolism, underlying themes, etc... If I had a choice to listen to Ebert for two hours and learning something about a movie like Casablanca, or listening to an average joe on the street for two hours talk about Casablanca, I will go to the more knowledgable person.

Ebert knows a lot. (And how come you don't like my Spielberg and Lucas examples? You yourself are using examples to illustrate your point, such as Avril Lavigne and Eminem)

 

Yeah, lot of critics start as a writer.

Yeah and they will still be a writer. That's what they are. There nothing more then a writer with any opinion no better then yours or mean.

But someone, who has been a film critic for years surely (at least if he does his job thoroughly) is more experienced and more informed about movies than the average moviegoer.

His job is to give his opinion. With in at time a page or two. Sometimes less that does not give a critic more experienc in what a better movie is.

So whatever you say, for me R.E. has more credibility than you.

How becaue he writers for a paper? It's his opinion. Why on a message board when people are talkin about a movie in this case AOTC do they need a critic to back up what they say? To give them credibility? I don't think so. I don't need to be R.E. to have credibility.

I mean if i had to choose which one to watch out of 2 films i haven't seen yet, then R.E.'s opinion would count more than yours, there would be a certain chance i'd make the wrong choice though.

You see that is were I darw the line. A critic does not know more about movies are muisc then the next guy. He never will he is a writer. He starts out as a writer he stays a writer. A Wrtier for a newspaper does not know become the be all end all of what a good movie is. He does not gain more credibility. You want to know why? Where I live I get a paper called the Macomb Daily. They are the must basit paper I have ever read. Where I used to live a amiupthere(sp) was put up. This has made it a living hell for people who live around that place.

The paper and other people form other towns know tell ever one who live around the place that there opinion mean nothing and they have no credibility. The paper only gives Freedom Hills side of the story. And will put things in the paper that are not true.

How does this work with critics? Simple they are just like the rest of the writers in the paper. Baseit(sp) that's right people papers can be very one sided. If R.E. does not like horror movies the chances of him give one a good review are really low. People who write for newpapers will take a side and stay with that side tell the end of time. There's always to sides to a story same with a review. So you may think that R.E. has more credibility. But when it comes down to it when I come here to this messages board I will give my opinion and I don't need a critic to back me up nor do I want one because it is my opinion that theres.

If I ask you what you thought of a movie all I want is your opinion. I don't want R.E.'s I don't care what he thinks. Not only that but I did not ask him.

However, what I disagree with you on is that film critics in general have worthless opinions and are just paid to absent-mindedly spew forth their ideas onto paper.

That's what they are paid to do. Same with sports writers. When it comes to something such as talk about how many people are killed by guns that's different.

Film critics for papers writer in the I, me, we, you, way of writing. Same with sports writers. I have taken many writering class because I'm going into busniess. With papers they use very informel way of writing and are paid to give what they thought of a movie. They are paid to write what they thought of the acting, and so on. That's it.

 

This thread is not discussing Attack of the Clones and hasn't been for some time. Nothing wrong with the debate, just move it on over to SW Community where it belongs.