Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

suntimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 171 posts

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#141

Post by vacri »

schiffern wrote: post #138
vacri wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function This is the same guy who said "video games cannot be art, and I will not consider debate about it ". The second part in particular was what I found disturbing.

I can't find a source for your quote, but he seems to consider quite a bit of debate in this article: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve... He also clarifies that he thinks video games can in principle be art, but that no video game yet made could hold its own among the great works of art.

Ebert's criticisms of videogames sound exactly like the layperson's criticisms of cubism: doesn't look like what I think a picture should look like; it doesn't appeal to me; it doesn't make rational sense to me. One clear example is when he equates Braid's 'reversing time' mechanism to 'taking back a move in chess'. It's not - it's a game mechanic used in the game to progress, not to have a do-over. He is operating from some very wrong assumptions.

I don't mean to restart the debate here, I'm just pointing out that his arguments are insulated and prejudiced, and hence my main point: that by denying any debate on the topic (it's the first sentence in your link - relented only by sheer volume), he refuses to learn about the topic. Again, I think this is in stark contrast to the quote I was initially responding to. I think it is profoundly anti-intellectual to behave in this manner.

I don't care whether or not he likes games, or whether he thinks they're shit art or not. Each to their own. But for an influential person in a related field to make such a contentious, declarative statement, and then refuse to entertain debate... that's anti-intellectualism, in my opinion. Just like the layperson who doesn't get cubism and calls it inferior as a result.

He did change opinion over time and concede that they could be 'non-traditional art', which suggests that yes indeed, engaging in debate (even if it has to be forced upon you) can actually change your views; help you understand why people say what they say.

PS: the snarky person in me had to laugh at Ebert's characterisation of games as 'not art' because the audience's actions can change the outcome or plot. Clearly he never played Mass Effect :D

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#142

Post by mehwoot »

vacri wrote: post #141
schiffern wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find a source for your quote, but he seems to consider quite a bit of debate in this article: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve... He also clarifies that he thinks video games can in principle be art, but that no video game yet made could hold its own among the great works of art.

Ebert's criticisms of videogames sound exactly like the layperson's criticisms of cubism: doesn't look like what I think a picture should look like; it doesn't appeal to me; it doesn't make rational sense to me. One clear example is when he equates Braid's 'reversing time' mechanism to 'taking back a move in chess'. It's not - it's a game mechanic used in the game to progress, not to have a do-over. He is operating f…

Shit, people's perceptions of art are insulted and prejudiced? Who knew?

Isn't the fact that he supposedly said he doesn't consider them art and doesn't want to debate it an indication that he views it as just a personal opinion, and not something he wants to force on other people? He has his reasons, no doubt, but not everybody in the world needs to embrace everything in it. If he was happy with the art that he knew, good for him.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#144

Post by philwelch »

nsxwolf wrote: post #61
smacktoward wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite line of his is the one he ended his review of 1996's Mad Dog Time ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Dog_Time ) with: " Mad Dog Time should be cut up to provide free ukelele picks for the poor."

Also: "'Mad Dog Time' is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time."

Later, he wrote about a different movie:

"I was reminded of Mad Dog Time (1996), another movie in which well-known actors engaged in laughable dialogue while shooting one another. Of that one, I wrote: " `Mad Dog Time' is the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of a blank screen viewed for the same length of time." Now comes Frogs for Snakes, the first movie I have seen that does not improve on the sight of Mad Dog Time."

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#145

Post by brg »

gnosis wrote: post #74
JPKab wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. The Fitzgerald quote is amazing. Thanks for sharing. As a kid growing up in a poor, rural community, I wasn't exposed to much intellectual writing. The exception was the reprint in the local paper of Ebert's movie reviews, and of course seeing him on one of the two channels that came in on the antenna. When so many around me thought that being dissatisfied with the intellectual equivalent of McDonald's was eliti…

It's a sad comment on society that Ebert is considered an intellectual.

If Ebert had died before Siskel, your comment would probably not be questioned. Ebert has a reputation now that did not exist throughout nearly the entirety of his career. His reputation was resurrected with his public battle with cancer in 2006. Before then he was this guy:

http://www.pajiba.com/videos/watch-roger-ebert-was-a-total-d...

His personality kept at arms length throughout the 80's and 90's.

However when he could only speak through his writings, people saw some sparks of brilliance and began paying him attention. The bravery he showed by appearing at the Sundance Festival after losing his jaw was noticed. And over the last six years he has been recognized as last great critic.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#146

Post by avenger123 »

stevewillows wrote: post #117

I admire Roger Ebert so much for the way he dealt with his cancer and the problems that resulted from it. Truly someone who took a really bad situation and rose above it. He will be missed.

I definitely concur.

For him to get out in public, keep producing work and showing the world that he can be above the disease is very commendable.

We are never given a choice with the cards that life sometimes throws our way, but we always have a choice with how we respond.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#147

Post by vacri »

mehwoot wrote: post #142
vacri wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ebert's criticisms of videogames sound exactly like the layperson's criticisms of cubism: doesn't look like what I think a picture should look like; it doesn't appeal to me; it doesn't make rational sense to me. One clear example is when he equates Braid's 'reversing time' mechanism to 'taking back a move in chess'. It's not - it's a game mechanic used in the game to progress, not to have a do-over. He is operating f…

Shit, people's perceptions of art are insulted and prejudiced? Who knew? Isn't the fact that he supposedly said he doesn't consider them art and doesn't want to debate it an indication that he views it as just a personal opinion, and not something he wants to force on other people? He has his reasons, no doubt, but not everybody in the world needs to embrace everything in it. If he was happy with the art that he knew…

If he was happy with the art that he knew, good for him.

I didn't say otherwise on what made him happy. But when you're an influential public figure making public statements, the rules are a little different for you. If a politician or a leading business figure said "I think latinos are lazy and worthless. I'm not going to debate that, it's just a personal opinion", would you still say that no-one would have a right to ask them to justify the statement or hold them to account?

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#148

Post by asveikau »

KevinMS wrote: post #124
tiredofcareer wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What can you say about a film reviewer that gives Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3.5 out of 4 stars? That he enjoyed it and you didn't? Some people really love that film, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that you don't. You should be just as willing to accept that others do. Your comment sucks.

> That he enjoyed it and you didn't? This is what a film reviewer does? He liked it watching it, so it gets a high score? How about whether the readers of his review would like it? > Your comment sucks. This is HN, not reddit.

Here I was thinking "your comment sucks" was a clever play on Ebert's "your movie sucks".

It's funny some of the vitriol around here, on a discussion of an obituary. Can't some guy die in peace?

(Aside, or back to the original topic, depending on perspective: In the last decade or so I'd been really impressed by some of Ebert's writing, post-cancer. It showed a lot of depth that you didn't get from the TV movie critic persona that he had in the 90s.)

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#149

Post by stormbrew »

parfe wrote: post #46

Ebert wrote an article in 1997 about 2001: A Space Odyssey which changed the way I watch movies. He made me start thinking about why the director and his characters do things rather than caring specifically about what they were doing. His work will stick with me for the rest of my life. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19...

That's fantastic. Puts into words so well why I've loved that film so much since the first time I saw it, even though I've actually fallen asleep to it several times. This is basically concise proof that Ebert loved film for its merits and not for being just another way to tell a story.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#150

Post by tiredofcareer »

asveikau wrote: post #148
KevinMS wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That he enjoyed it and you didn't? This is what a film reviewer does? He liked it watching it, so it gets a high score? How about whether the readers of his review would like it? > Your comment sucks. This is HN, not reddit.

Here I was thinking "your comment sucks" was a clever play on Ebert's "your movie sucks". It's funny some of the vitriol around here, on a discussion of an obituary. Can't some guy die in peace? (Aside, or back to the original topic, depending on perspective: In the last decade or so I'd been really impressed by some of Ebert's writing, post-cancer. It showed a lot of depth that you didn't get from the TV movie criti…

> was a clever play on Ebert's "your movie sucks".

It was, which fed my point when he missed it.

I'm with you. That we're even having this discussion on Roger Ebert's obit just makes me hate people.

Post reply on HN