Roger Ebert is Dead

[quote name='Javery']I know he had health problems but he wasn't that old...[/QUOTE]

I thought I just saw a yahoo story in the last 24 hours stating that he was having problems with his legs but released a statement saying he was going to continue with his work...
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I thought I just saw a yahoo story in the last 24 hours stating that he was having problems with his legs but released a statement saying he was going to continue with his work...[/QUOTE]

Yup - according to THIS article, he released a statement to that effect on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, Mr. Ebert blogged that he had suffered a recurrence of cancer following a hip fracture suffered in December, and would be taking “a leave of presence.” In the blog essay, marking his 46th anniversary of becoming the Sun-Times film critic, Ebert wrote “I am not going away. My intent is to continue to write selected reviews but to leave the rest to a talented team of writers hand-picked and greatly admired by me.”
Click to expand...

Crazy if he really deteriorated that fast.
 
I think 70 is a good age for him all things considered. He had the cancer, the fracture and a history of obesity.

I liked that he pushed the art of animation and although most anime is godawful, he praised and advocated for the good stuff in America. I didn't agree with all of his political views but I always enjoyed what he had to say. My favorite moments are from when he (with Siskel and without) were on the Howard Stern Show.

I'm probably going to read 20 articles about this right now.
 
Daaamn man. That hurts. I loved watching At The Movies. Even when Roper took over. I always hoped Ebert would recover.
 
Sad stuff. I always enjoyed watching At the Movies late at night. Cancer sucks. He looked pretty rough towards the end after surgery, like one of the puppets from the Genesis "Land of Confusion" video. I can't even imagine going through something like that.
 
[quote name='Javery']Yup - according to THIS article, he released a statement to that effect on Tuesday.



Crazy if he really deteriorated that fast.[/QUOTE]

Not certain if the cause of death was due to the cancer or if something else happened.
 
Didn't know he had really bad cancer near the end. Decided to go to YouTube to see what kind of condition he was in. Did he do something seriously fucked up that I was unaware of? There was a shit ton of pretty acerbic comments celebrating he was dead rather than the normal R.I.P.. I mean even more caustic than a typical YouTube comment thread normally is.
 
[quote name='ced'] Did he do something seriously fucked up that I was unaware of?[/QUOTE]
He said video games are not art.
 
While I didn't agree with some of his views or reviews (especially regarding video games), he was a fantastic writer, the kind who actually considers the point he's making and the turn of the phrase in a way more internet hacks simply don't. As a lifelong Mark Twain fan, I enjoy newspapermen who can add some wit and intelligence instead of just stating "this is how this was."

Pity he passed right after Bioshock Infinite released - it's a good bet for the next "See, video games are art!" argument, especially compared to the garbage in the movies lately.

Here are some good Ebert quotes:

“Every great film should seem new every time you see it.”

“No matter what they're charging to get in, it's worth more to get out.”

“No good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough.”

“If he's going to persist in making bad movies, he's going to have to grow accustomed to reading bad reviews.” -- referring to Rob Schneider in “Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo.”

“To say that George Lucas cannot write a love scene is an understatement; greeting cards have expressed more passion.”

“Your intellect may be confused, but your emotions will never lie to you.”

“I’ve seen audits that were more thrilling.” -- referring to “Crocodile Dundee II.”

“If you have to ask what it symbolizes, it didn't.”

“I stopped taking notes on my Palm Pilot and started playing the little chess game.” -- referring to “Masterminds.”

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly.”
 
Thumbs up, Mr. Ebert.

roger-ebert-dead-1.jpg
 
If Ebert had played Bioshock Infinite he probably would have pointed out all the plot holes and the illogical world they crafted. The whole story is still a mess no matter how good the art design is.
 
On average 155,000 people die per day. Roger Ebert is only 1 of those people.

I couldn't give any more of a fuck less.
 
He wrote a book with Gene Siskel (also R.I.P.) that talked about film aspect ratios and the like. I got it from the library, and it really made me think. The fact that movies are filmed in different heights and widths never occurred to me before that. Also, they were talking on the radio about who is left to helm the "Great Chicago Media Icon" trophy these days, and they came up with Oprah. Ok. But really, losing Ebert hits me hard. Richard Roeper, his onetime sidekick carries his torch, but Ebert dying is like Bozo dying. Whichever Bozo you prefer. And my brother is Wizzo's stepson-in-law (or something to that effect), so I should know!
 
[quote name='Calipso']

I couldn't give any more of a fuck less.[/QUOTE]

What the hell is a fuck less? If it's less of a fuck, where x = fuck, then is the equation x - y where y is the unknown variable of being less than a fuck? And how could you give any more than that to begin with? That would imply you would give a fuck or x but you certainly can not when x - y does not equal x.
 
[quote name='Calipso']On average 155,000 people die per day. Roger Ebert is only 1 of those people.

I couldn't give any more of a fuck less.[/QUOTE]

Momma once said, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
 
[quote name='Calipso']On average 155,000 people die per day. Roger Ebert is only 1 of those people.

I couldn't give any more of a fuck less.[/QUOTE]No originality, thumbs down.
:roll:
 
[quote name='Calipso']On average 155,000 people die per day. Roger Ebert is only 1 of those people.

I couldn't give any more of a fuck less.[/QUOTE]

Oh so that's where you been hiding Gargus!
 
I remember watching Sneak Previews pretty religiously, and being annoyed when they "sold out" and went on commercial TV. Of course now I would love to see something equivalent on commercial TV (or otherwise), but I guess there's just no market for it any more. RIP.
 
[quote name='Spokker']If Ebert had played Bioshock Infinite he probably would have pointed out all the plot holes and the illogical world they crafted. The whole story is still a mess no matter how good the art design is.[/QUOTE]

There is art in art design (and in video games), but it's not even remotely the same as the art in the best films and books. Roger was basically right. In general, video games aren't truly artistic. Some are darn pretty and show a lot of skill and care, but that's not the same thing. There are some exceptions, but the Bioshock series certainly isn't one of them.
 
[quote name='crunchewy']There is art in art design (and in video games), but it's not even remotely the same as the art in the best films and books. Roger was basically right. In general, video games aren't truly artistic. Some are darn pretty and show a lot of skill and care, but that's not the same thing. There are some exceptions, but the Bioshock series certainly isn't one of them.[/QUOTE]
So only the best films and books are art then? Or is it all films and books? Because that encompasses some pretty bad works that I'd say most people wouldn't consider art. If you had to choose between, say Bioshock Infinite and Big Mama's house, which do you think is art?

Or what if an actual fine artist designed the graphics of a game?
 
[quote name='Clak']So only the best films and books are art then? Or is it all films and books? Because that encompasses some pretty bad works that I'd say most people wouldn't consider art. If you had to choose between, say Bioshock Infinite and Big Mama's house, which do you think is art?

Or what if an actual fine artist designed the graphics of a game?[/QUOTE]

Of course not all films and books. That's a dumb argument.

But I tend to agree with Ebert. While certain prints out of a video game could be considered art (see lithographs of mass effect of other franchises), as a whole, they are not art. Art cannot be a choose your own adventure story.

And I love video games. They just aren't art.
 
Video games are not art. They are a medium that have the potential to be used to make art. The same goes for movies, books, paintings, photography and anything else that can be used to make something (even welding, for example).

The end.
 
[quote name='Calipso']On average 155,000 people die per day. Roger Ebert is only 1 of those people.

I couldn't give any more of a fuck less.[/QUOTE]

I'll be sure to remind you of this fact when your parents die. :roll:
 
I'm not saying they are or aren't, really don't care, I'm just trying to clarify what is in fact art. Because it seems to me that people have some pretty loose views of what is and isn't art, even based on the quality of the work, which I don't think makes any sense. A painting can be really shitty, but it's still someone's artwork.

Maybe it's that art goes into a video game, but the game itself as a whole isn't art. The story, the character designs etc.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm not saying they are or aren't, really don't care, I'm just trying to clarify what is in fact art. Because it seems to me that people have some pretty loose views of what is and isn't art, even based on the quality of the work, which I don't think makes any sense. A painting can be really shitty, but it's still someone's artwork.

Maybe it's that art goes into a video game, but the game itself as a whole isn't art. The story, the character designs etc.[/QUOTE]

That's why the qualification of "great" art. Any schmoe can weld together two hubcaps and call it art.

Great obviously being subjective.

@accessdenied - brutal but lol.

Although I'm sure you've just spurred a "celebrity worship is the devil.." Rant out of Gargus/calipso.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm not saying they are or aren't, really don't care, I'm just trying to clarify what is in fact art. Because it seems to me that people have some pretty loose views of what is and isn't art, even based on the quality of the work, which I don't think makes any sense. A painting can be really shitty, but it's still someone's artwork.

Maybe it's that art goes into a video game, but the game itself as a whole isn't art. The story, the character designs etc.[/QUOTE]

I did a paper on something like this my sophomore year. It had to do with pornography and art. The essence of the arguments was that something is really only art if it was created for that purpose. Call of Duty isn't art because it's purpose is to make money off of 12 year old kids. But I might argue that something like fl0w or Flower would be art and the creators would probably agree. Whether it's good or not is another story, but I think it has to do with intentions.
 
There was (is still?) an exhibit at the Smithsonian on Video games as art. This exhibit had lots of platitudes printed on the walls in large letters declaring how wonderful and important video games are. No real art exhibit does that. They have info about the artist, they list the materials used, etc. The don't state in bold letters: Painting is art. Painting is important. Those words on the walls at the VG exhibit, they were there because what they have on display is just a bunch of video games. LOL. The only art part of the exhibit wasn't a video game at all, but rather a set of 3 or 4 HD monitors showing people as they played video games. Their expressions and such. That was art. As far as the video games on display, I like video games or I wouldn't be here and so I enjoyed seeing them, but it should have been presented as history, not art.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I did a paper on something like this my sophomore year. It had to do with pornography and art. The essence of the arguments was that something is really only art if it was created for that purpose. Call of Duty isn't art because it's purpose is to make money off of 12 year old kids. But I might argue that something like fl0w or Flower would be art and the creators would probably agree. Whether it's good or not is another story, but I think it has to do with intentions.[/QUOTE]
But see, that sort of classification depends on your viewpoint. Take film for example, the director, actors etc. probably see it as art, the movie studio sees it as a business venture, who's view is correct? If the studio only funds the movie with the intention to make money (and they do), is it art?

Same thing goes for music, the labels aren't in art , they're in the making money off of music business. The musicians producing the music see it as art most likely, but the labels don't care.
 
[quote name='Clak']But see, that sort of classification depends on your viewpoint. Take film for example, the director, actors etc. probably see it as art, the movie studio sees it as a business venture, who's view is correct? If the studio only funds the movie with the intention to make money (and they do), is it art?

Same thing goes for music, the labels aren't in art , they're in the making money off of music business. The musicians producing the music see it as art most likely, but the labels don't care.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it definitely gets fuzzy. If you've got Dave Grohl and 3 session musicians (only doing it for money), is it really art? Who knows. Those kind of gray areas are up for debate. For me, I just ask myself "did the creator(s) really want this to be art?" Generally, if at least one person who had a role in creation wanted it to be art, I consider it to be. (Probably bad art, but art none the less. :))

EDIT: Maybe a nice compromise would be to think of art as a gradient. Something could be anywhere from 0 to 100 percent art. It complicates things a bit, but clears up some of those gray areas. :)
 
To me any expression of an idea can be considered "art" - of course that is super broad and there is great art and shitty art but it's all so subjective that putting any kind of limitation around the definition is pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top