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

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#161

Post by danielweber »

michaelochurch wrote: post #108
gnosis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This idea that new forms of media (film, TV) are innately anti-intellectual just because the classics were in writing is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong. Reading is important, the classics are important. But the idea that you have to focus in "old stuff" to be intellectual is absurd.

A little ironic given how Ebert was so long a stick-in-the-mud about video games being considered art. ISTR he eventually caved on that, though.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#162

Post by jmj42 »

cpher wrote: post #159
jmj42 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and get up to change the TV channel In 1990, I was in high school. We moved to a small town near Urbana, IL. I was impressed then, and continue to be today, that Ebert would return to Urbana, Ebert's home town, every year in April (health permitting) to headline Ebertfest. Ebertfest is a local film festival held to honor him. With Ebertfest only 2 weeks away, it will be truly sad knowing that the world has lost a…

I grew up just outside C-U and remember that very well. I think back in early 1997 he hosted a special screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Virginia Theater. One of the actors was there (Keir Dullea, maybe?) and they had a "fireside chat" about the movie and a Q&A session. It was a great experience.

I remember that. I don't remember the actor either, but UIUC held all maner of event to celebrate HAL's birth (the movies put his birth as 1992, but it's 1997 in the books).

In an interesting twist of fate, my office is in the coordinated science lab (CSL), where HAL was built.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#163

Post by papsosouid »

sho_hn wrote: post #24

While it might be cheap to remember a critic by something as sensationalist as a scorcher - and Ebert was of a higher caliber than to build a career on the entertainment value of them - his review of "Highlander 2" has been a favorite of mine for its good-natured bickering about the gaping holes in the film's logic: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19... (Cache: http://web.archive.org/web/201…

>I think what set Ebert apart is that he consistently judged films in the context of their ambitions

Yet he consistently dismissed films that I would describe as "low brow humour" as being terrible films. He said Ace Ventura was one of the worst films he had seen for example, and his reasoning appeared to be "the character is annoying, and the jokes are crude".

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#164

Post by webwanderings »

bcgraham wrote: post #66
webwanderings wrote: post #56

I was bowled over by Ebert's fascination with Dark City and I really liked it the first time I watched. However, many years later, I watched it again and it left me bewildered as to why I liked this movie in the first. As much as I like and respect Roger Ebert, I think he was dead wrong on his fascination with this movie. Great movies do not fall off of the imaginative pedestal, only the bad one does. As a profession…

>As a professional movie critic, he earned respect through his craft, but I think world of cinema is better off without any movie critic. Totally disagree - the critic, at his best, spotlights movies you would have missed, unlocks movies you would have found confusing, and rescues movies you would have hated. They facilitate love of cinema.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you missed my context. The professional movie critic is not necessarily a good idea for moviegoers who are themselves fond of the craft of movies and are critics in themselves.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#165

Post by bobwaycott »

apas wrote: post #157
bobwaycott wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite what the internet would have you believe, Aristotle never said such a thing. That quote may be a product of the Fitzgerald quote being mangled and misattributed, or of someone thinking they could say what Aristotle said better than Aristotle did. The closest we get to such a statement is from Nichomachean Ethics 1094b23-25 : > "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision…

Well, this quote (the one I've shared) has indeed a fair amount of sources. It's attributed to Metaphysics ( http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2479557 ), Nichomachean Ethics -- as you said ( http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/aristotleworks/a/121610-A... ), and Wikiquote ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aristotle ). cmd+f (or ctrl) for 'educated' to find it in the last two links for it also appears slightly differen…

Respectfully, no. You're research isn't up to snuff.

The quote you provided has zero primary sources. It doesn't even have secondary sources. All it has is a bunch of Google results, where its misattribution is repeated (as if that makes it therefore true). Have you ever noticed how you never see that quote with an actual reference?

In the Nichomachean Ethics, irregardless of translations, your quote is absent. That quote you've shared is made up, not the product of a translation. Consult the Ethics themselves. A translator does not take a 30+ word sentence, cut it by a third, alter the meaning of the statement, and then let it pass. That is a paraphrase--and the one you've quoted is not even a paraphrase of any translation of the Ethics itself.

Look at the content of the statement from the Ethics. It is not the same as what you've posted. That should give you a full stop right there.

Goodreads is wrong. Your acceptance of the attributed quote is an error. When you're looking for a 'fair amount of sources' regarding quotations attributed to a philosopher who wrote in another language in another time, it's best to stick with the consensus of those who study and translate that philosopher and the primary and secondary source material available. There are myriad Aristotle experts who specialize in his works and translate them. You will find that none of them attribute your quote to Aristotle.

Note how the Wikipedia page does not include the quote you posted. Note how the Ethics does not contain the quote you posted--not in any translation. Why? Because Aristotle never said it, and the quote you've picked up from the internet is not saying the same thing.

I really wasn't trying to be rude. The rational thing to do here is to update your beliefs based on evidence. Your quote is not a bad quote. It's just not Aristotle's. The translations, though they may differ in some wording, carry the same meaning (which the internet-Aristotle-quote does not):

[paraphrase mine] > An educated mind is noted by its ability to be satisfied by the precision allowed by a given subject, while not demanding exactitude where only approximation can be attained.

Of course, there's the second part of the quote (in some translations), where Aristotle expounds (again, paraphrase mine):

> The educated person would not ask a rhetorician for scientific proof of his statements; neither would she ask a mathematician to reason in probabilities alone.

--- I was trying to be helpful, not argumentative. Since you're still wanting to stand your ground that your quote is actually from Aristotle, I have to point out that your sources are unreliable to reference in proving your point. Go to the primary sources, not other websites that are re-quoting the same quote you did. That's as kindly as I can put it without just dismissing this as you refusing to update your beliefs based on sufficient evidence.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#166

Post by bobwaycott »

cafard wrote: post #158
apas wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this quote (the one I've shared) has indeed a fair amount of sources. It's attributed to Metaphysics ( http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2479557 ), Nichomachean Ethics -- as you said ( http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/aristotleworks/a/121610-A... ), and Wikiquote ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aristotle ). cmd+f (or ctrl) for 'educated' to find it in the last two links for it also appears slightly differen…

One is at the disadvantage that translations will vary. But the Metaphysics themselves are not terribly long...

That quote is not the product of varied translations. It is not Aristotle's.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#167

Post by raganwald »

papsosouid wrote: post #163
sho_hn wrote: post #24

While it might be cheap to remember a critic by something as sensationalist as a scorcher - and Ebert was of a higher caliber than to build a career on the entertainment value of them - his review of "Highlander 2" has been a favorite of mine for its good-natured bickering about the gaping holes in the film's logic: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19... (Cache: http://web.archive.org/web/201…

>I think what set Ebert apart is that he consistently judged films in the context of their ambitions Yet he consistently dismissed films that I would describe as "low brow humour" as being terrible films. He said Ace Ventura was one of the worst films he had seen for example, and his reasoning appeared to be "the character is annoying, and the jokes are crude".

True, but there is a difference between well-crafted jokes about a crude subject and crudely fashioned jokes.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#168

Post by AlexandrB »

jellicle wrote: post #96

Ebert was a great film critic, but oddly, no one here seems to be talking about his one gigantic blind spot, which is his enduring and impenetrable belief that video games are not art, could never be art, and have no artistic merit whatsoever. His half-hearted apology - "I still believe this, but I should never have said so." - is in no way a retraction or backdown from that belief. This is totally wrong. Movies are…

> Movies are a subset of video games.

This is just my opinion, but they are not.

Videogames are not about the same things movies are. This is most clearly illustrated by how we define film genres vs. video game genres. Film genres are generally organized by thematic content or visual style, e.g. science-fiction, western, horror, etc. Video game genres are generally organized by their interactive element - platformers, first-person shooters, role-playing games, etc.

Many of the best games are not about the plot or the visuals. Consider games like Minecraft, SimCity, Super Mario Brothers, or Tetris. These games connect with you because of what you do. Good cinema connects with you because of what you see.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#169

Post by shrikant »

nsxwolf wrote: post #58
tptacek wrote: post #13

Fitzgerald said "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Ebert seemed to have a knack for thinking all the thoughts simultaneously, and then getting their product onto a page: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.... http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/03/how_i_am_a_roman_cat... One of t…

There's no replacement. I honestly can't see myself reading movie reviews ever again.

Mark Kermode from the BBC? Granted you mostly have to listen instead of read, as he's primarily a radio reviewer, but he's damned good. And obstinately opinionated, which makes for some fun review rants.

Check out his "Sex and the City 2: The Movie". Legendary among his fans.

Re: Roger Ebert dies at 70 after battle with cancer

#170

Post by tshepang »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #73
barce wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Ebert was the only critic who could tell you how to improve as a film maker. His integrity was incorruptible. He knew things about film that none of the critics around today seem to know: a complete knowledge of films of the past, what it takes to make a film since he did one himself in the 60s, and how to make a film better. He will be terribly missed.

He comes from an old school of critics. There are plenty other good ones today, they're just not as fortunate with the media exposure Ebert got. Some of my favorites are Glenn Kenny, David Bordwell, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Kent Jones, and others I'm missing.

Agreed with the mention of Jonathan Rosenbaum, the best critic I've read yet (but then again I am not familiar with the works of the others you mention).
Post reply on HN