Will there ever be another Ebert?

Will there ever be another Ebert?


Even when I don't agree with him I find his opinions insightful and meaningful


Today, reviewers are in it for the buzzwords and social justice

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OkwVz_jK3gA
rogerebert.com/reviews/thor-2011
twitter.com/AnonBabble

imagine a blowjob from him lmao

>Will there ever be another Ebert?

No.

He's already around

>Today, reviewers are in it for the buzzwords and social justice
Ya that's the problem with the internet.

Once people realized how easy it was to get their opinion out to a large audience, everyone became an online critic.

Ebert is a respectable reviewer but come on, he started SJW shit and giving bad reviews because movies offended his sensibilities over violence. How long did his crusade against David Lynch last because his movies were too disturbing and violent? He's the one who made it acceptable for reviewers to put their agendas first in movie reviews.

His openions were dumb. No I wont provede example's. Maybe he wrote good columns but he wasnt right about anything.

>he wasnt right about anything.
huh?

He was pretty good if you just ignored anything with Angelina Jolie or sci-fi.

will there ever be four leonard maltins

reminder that he gave a 4/4 to ______avatar_____

Also Knowing

His reviews weren't very in depth

I like that he would give a good review for tits.

He appreciated spectacle.

what is this look trying to convey?

What do you call this face style?

Listen to his commentary track on Dark City. The guy knew his stuff.

It's probably ridiculously easy to point out his flaws and weird opinions/scores, but pound for pound, he was the most solid critic ever.

Probably his biggest benefit was that he put a broad audience's taste first and brought a thoughtful/artful way of seeing how it mixes with the movie at hand. He brought a lot to the table as a critic: you could tell that he was a book geek (arguably as much as he was a film geek), and the influence was massively beneficial. Yet, besides maybe his writing style (and of course, literary adaptations themselves), it was never "in your face."

More than anything, his reviews came off as a warm, intelligent guy giving you his take on the film. I can't recall many "ironic" reviews of Ebert's or times when he's tried to position himself above his audience, as if he were some kind of powerful man. And yet, he was rarely terse and perfunctory and was instead almost always genuine about his like or dislike for a film.

The combination of all these things made him a fucking rarity.

There are critics who are as smart as Ebert, but they almost categorically lack his warmth and enthusiasm for reviewing films (which isn't to say they have none...just less). The ones who are more personable and casual usually don't have the "deep" thoughts that make a critic worth reading/listening to for years: they rarely consider the point or the power of storytelling across all media, they rarely sit back and reflect on changing trends and hopeful beginnings, and a good number of them just have basic, shitty taste that affects like 50% of their opinions.

The saddest thing is that most of the good potential critics are just going to move to film analysis directly, studying and writing about forms rather than reviewing stuff. So, an already dying institution will be further lacking.

This is true.

But it's also a testament to his quality as a writer, since almost anyone else would get laughed out of the business for that.

>implying Armond White isn't way better

Mike and Jay are nu-Siskel and Ebert.

If you asked Armond White on the street why he disliked/liked a movie, he wouldn't be able to tell you. I guarantee it. The only reason he's able to write reviews is because he's a contrarian with a thesaurus.

for me, Red Letter Media isn't a replacement, but they somewhat fill the void.

Anyone else enjoy Siskel and Ebert shit talking protestants?

I don't think this is a bad thing. Reviewers and journalists shouldn't pretend to not have their own biases, because they can fool people into thinking that they actually don't.

Roger Ebert opened the door for the pathetic state of criticism today.

He had no credentials, training or technical knowledge. His only qualifications were as a writer, but since he was likeable enough to gather an audience people trusted him.

Now any asshole with a toilet paper journalism degree from some shithole for-profit university thinks that their opinion on film matters as much as Armond White's and you get a critical consensus that Pain & Gain is awful while Guardians of the Galaxy is excellent.

this

>contrarian with a thesaurus
Whether or not Armond White likes or dislikes the movie isn't included in the column is because it's irrelevant. What does somebody else's enjoyment of a movie tell you beyond that they enjoyed it? Would you respect him more if every piece opened with 'WOW, 11/10 thumbs up!'

youtube.com/watch?v=OkwVz_jK3gA

rogerebert.com/reviews/thor-2011
Nope.

He gave it more stars than it is worth.

>Ebert died just in time to miss the oversaturation of capeshit

the wrong one died in '99

>He might as well be wearing a name tag: "Hi! I can't be trusted!

Not really. Now we have a lot more access to films so it's not special anymore to have that knowledge of films and film history.

well said

Cancer

And any movie with a strong black woman

Armond was pretty much right about him. He was good for recommendations for people who aren't that much into cinema but that's it.

What's wrong with his face?

he didn't like wild at heart and elephant man. i disagreed with him on both but his objections had absolutely nothing to do with violence

agreed. I also don't read fiction by anyone without a PhD. It's beneath me

fuck off

How many fiction writers actually have PHDs? I don't think you thought this out at all.

Only reading critical analysis by people with PHDs would be a rather intelligent thing to do. But nobody gives out PHDs in fiction. That doesn't make sense.