A little less than a year ago, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen opened to overwhelmingly negative reviews. This did not stop it from earning $400,000,000 domestically and more than $800,000,000 worldwide, making it one of the top-ten highest grossing films of all time (click here for the full list).
Among the most scathing reviews of the film is this one by Roger Ebert. He continued his thoughts here, through his blog, which generated nearly 850 comments — enough for Ebert to pen “I’m a Proud Brainiac,” which is the subject of our own discussion here.
Once you have read the review and blog entry, click here to load the “Brainiac” article. Take in Ebert’s argument, and then turn your attention to the comments, where you will find Ebert responding directly to visitors of all kinds. Skim over this discussion (don’t try to read all 1,000 comments).
Your task here is simple: Begin your own discussion in the comments about the issues Ebert raises and the arguments he makes. Let his readers help guide you, too. This is a conversation about opinions, disagreement, taste, the Internet, contemporary dialog, respect, excess… There is a lot here. Ground your discussion in the texts, and you should be able to have fun with this.
Later this week, I’ll cap this adversarial with a due date, and I’ll offer updates on some of your recent assignments and assessments.
To start things off..I thought I’d post a couple of quotes from the comments (third packet) that really stuck out to me:
“This is now endemic in society: you have to choose sides, and once you do you must deprecate the other side regardless of reason or logic…. So no longer is it a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of right versus wrong” -FunWithHeadlines
– I feel like this quote summed up our conversation today. We could argue what is fact, what is opinion, what good acting is, what bad acting is. At one point there is nothing else to do. One side will always feel they’re right and the other side will always feel they’re right too regardless on whatever you consider to be logic or reason. Honestly, I think nobody was “Right” in our discussion today and that no matter how much we argued everything will go unsettled.
“The internet is ideally a perfect democracy. Quality rises” -Ebert
– I strongly disagree with this statement. There is so much crap on the internet! For example, if quality truly rose to the top, then we wouldn’t have to sift through site after site for a project to make sure we have reputable information. Some of the most viewed videos on youtube aren’t fantastic performers (though some are, I mean, look at Grayson Chance who sang paparazzi. He is amazing!) but they are blooper reels and people oblivious to their lack of talent trying to strut their stuff on the internet. There is quality on the internet but it takes a lot of digging for a single nugget of gold.
Will post more later, but class is almost over.
Commenting on the first quote Ashley, I feel the same way… we’ll never settle things. But of course, I’ll endorse my side again.
What we were trying to say in class is that, yes there is a difference in fact and opinion but you must respect this difference and how the only difference is what our society tells us it different. Everything is based on what we were saying was “generalizations”. Prove what your typing on is a keyboard. You can’t. There’s literally no was you can. You’ll just be making a futile attempt on explaining what society told you a keyboard was. I can believe 2 + 2 =5; I could believe “Transformers 2” is a good movie. That’s my opinion. I’m wrong. 2+2=4 and Transformers 2 was a bad movie. Our society agreed that both these things are true. I liked Transformers 2, no doubt about it, but you have to accept the fact that it WAS a bad movie. Our society agreed what a bad movie is and what a good movie is and based on what our society tells us what “good and bad” is you can infer what category it falls under. You can believe it’s good… but you’re wrong.
Like what Brian said. You can murder someone and believe it’s a “good” thing to do. It is a FACT that it is not a good thing to do.
Here’s where the technicalities come in. “Technically” everything can be argued down to nothing. You can technically argue that everything is a theory and nothing is fact. Technically it is (like what I said about the keyboard before) impossible to prove anything fact. So if what we define as “fact” is what society agrees on, like what the colour “blue” or that I am a “Boy”, than you can come to the conclusion about what a “good and bad” movie is. There is a set definition of what is good quality and what is bad quality. You can like the movie, you can think it’s good, but just like if you thought 2+2=5, you’d be wrong.
Everything in our world that is considered a “fact” is based on generalizations.
Just so that I don’t sound like I’m contradicting myself let me say this. If you’re willing to accept the “facts” that society tells you, you have to be willing to accept all of them. There is a set standard for what is right and wrong (even though you can argue everything down to nothing and at that point why even put effort forth in anything). This set standard that society has created says what a good and bad movie is. There’s a standard. If there is enough people to realize it is in fact a bad movie, it is. Granted I’m sure there is more people who agree that 2+2=4 than the fact that “Transformers 2” was bad but that’s because most people in America took math at some point in their life and have some type of math background. We’ve never studied what good and bad movies are, but those who have (MOVIE CRITICS) are telling us that is was a bad movie. They’re right because they say they are (they’re educated in that field, they know what is fact and not fact)… and hey, isn’t that how most people think in our society anyways.
Hey, Dan!
The idea that I think you’re alluding to is called solipsism. I think we went over it briefly (at least in our class) when reading a piece by David Foster Wallace. He said something along the lines of a pot smoker contemplating this idea and freaking out, dubbing it ‘cannabalic solipsism’. It’s basically the idea that you can not ever prove the existence, or difference in anything because, for all we know, I created it all. I made you argue with me to entertain myself; I conjured the class to accommodate my need to argue, and so on. Or you created it all, or Ashley did. It’s an interesting, and paradoxical idea. But, back to the point.
Good and bad are a point of view, and just because society has dictated what is “good” and what is “bad” does make it true. Society has necessitated plenty of ridiculous ideas – like the earth is flat. And that was “true” at one time. We are always products of our societies, but we don’t always have to bend to their every will. It’s not “wrong” to think that Transformers 2 was enjoyable. But, then again, I enjoy watching awful action and horror movies… perhaps I cannot tell the difference anymore.
I will not argue, however, that Transformers 2, at least by the definition of a “good” movie that society gave us, is good. Like Ebert has told us many times, there are plot holes, absurd action sequences, and awful acting compensated for by aesthetically pleasing main characters. I guess I’m forced to say this again, like many other advocates for Transformers. I just enjoyed seeing awesome robot action (though Optimus Primes badassness was short lived towards the end) and a talentless (unless you include her talent to be talentless) actress parade herself around in surprisingly clean clothes… in the middle of the desert. Maybe I wasn’t so disappointed because I watched Transformers when I was very young, and remember little of the cartoon. Maybe it was because I knew better. I mean, Michael Bay directed it. I didn’t walk in there expecting Casablanca, Clockwork Orange, or Full Metal Jacket (weird list, I know). I expected Spiderman III with robots. I knew better than to expect mastery from an at best mediocre director/producer, and you should too.
I end this rant with the wish that no one loses sleep over the idea of solipsism like I did when I first heard of it.
*follow-up on my own comment*
But, in the event that you do….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism_syndrome
Nihilism would be another word to describe the “everything can be reduced to nothing” concept (though I agree with Luke in that solipsism is creepy).
Nihilism is a belief in nothing. Nothing is true, nothing is good, nothing matters. You completely reject everything. It’s apathy on steroids. In class today, me/Colby/Dan were using nihilism to prove our point: there’s no such thing as a fact, in theory. 2+2=4, but what is “2”? What is “4”? What makes that desk a desk instead of a rhinoceros? The fact that we all communally agree that it’s a desk, and that 2+2=4. I can nihilistic argue that a desk doesn’t have to be a desk, if we remove that cultural standard that says it is a desk. When you try to parade the fact that Transformers 2 was a good movie as fact, you’re doing the same thing as saying a desk isn’t a desk.
You can’t throw the cultural standard out the window just because you don’t like the fact that it says your subjective opinion is be wrong. Your opinion CAN be wrong. If I say that my desk is actually a rhino, I am wrong. That may be my opinion, but regardless the standard says it is actually a desk. Likewise, you can say Transformers 2 is a good movie but the standard (and the 228 Rotten Tomato reviews that gave it one star) says it isn’t. Therefore, your opinion is wrong. There’s nothing that prevents you from saying you LIKED the movie, but you can’t say that it was the BEST movie ever and expect your opinion to be right. Liking a movie doesn’t put you up against the cultural standard. Gauging how good it was comparatively was, and if the cultural standard says you’re wrong… you’re wrong.
I just think a lot of people don’t like the idea that an opinion can be wrong; which I totally get. But really, I think an opinion CAN be wrong. Simply, if you argue the latter that an opinion cannot be wrong, you’re advocating nihilism. You abolish our standard, and everything can be reduced to nothing. If you say Transformers 2 was good, then I can say my desk is now a large grey land mammal (rhino’s are mammals, right? :P ). And that doesn’t make any sense.
Dear Brian,
Wooo! I agree of course.
And for all of you out there who are glaring with distaste at your screen (or is it a screen) let me just say one more thing.
I know, we’re being annoying. We know that more people will agree that the desk is a desk than the people who think that Transformers 2 was a bad movie. If anyone tried to seriously convince society that chairs were actually rhinos in disguise, I’d be the first one to break out the straight jacket. But if someone were to seriously try to convince me that Transformers 2 was a good movie I’d just shake my head and walk away. They’re on a different scale. The underlining point is that technically nothing is fact. And when nothing is fact we have to generalize. The general public thinks that a desk is a desk. We agreed on it. The general public (or movie critics rather since they actually know what they’re talking about) feel that Transformers 2 was a bad movie.
Nothing is certain and everything is an opinion. Nothing is 100% but since our society makes some things out to be 100% or “fact” then in return we have to claim some opinions as “wrong”.
Brian, Brian, Brian.
I am one of the many people that does not like the idea that an opinion can be wrong. But it is not because I am stubborn and disagree with the standard of society, it is because an opinion is personal. It is different for everyone, and I do not think that this personal level of beliefs can be wrong. If that was the case, there would be no difference between the words fact and opinion. I know we argued this in class, but I still strongly disagree with the both of you. ( Dan and Brian) A movie can be “bad” when held to the standards of society, but that does not make me wrong, if I think it was a good movie. Maybe it is wrong to a standard, but what makes a standard right anyway. It is not written anywhere, and it is not proven so this standard is just a theory. We think it exists, but there is no proof. Then there is the ambiguous meanings of the words good and bad. What is the set definition of these two words anyway. I mean, if you two are going to argue about an understanding of a word, and you can’t even fully articulate what that societal understanding of the word is, then it seems to me that the argument falls through the cracks. Sure, webster has a set meaning for both words, but it also has a meaning for the word fact and opinion as well, and if we are going to take everything it says as complete truth, this argument could have been settled a long time ago. Opinions cannot be wrong.
“A movie can be “bad” when held to the standards of society, but that does not make me wrong, if I think it was a good movie.”
How is that possible. Yes, I agree, you can always consider yourself “right” and as far as anyone tells you, you can always believe that you are… and isn’t that all that matters anyways. BUT what we’re arguing is that in general, in the eyes of the public, YOU ARE WRONG. If a movie is bad and you think it’s good, you’re technically wrong. You can argue that you think the standards of what good and bad movies are is wrong… but that’s a different story.
“Maybe it is wrong to a standard, but what makes a standard right anyway. It is not written anywhere, and it is not proven so this standard is just a theory. We think it exists, but there is no proof. Then there is the ambiguous meanings of the words good and bad”
This is a totally different argument but still relevant enough to discuss. When the movie gets a 16% approval rate on the “Tomatometer” from the top critics you can infer that it is agreed the movie was bad. Critics study what good and bad movies are and just because the criteria isn’t apparent to us doesn’t mean that it does not exist.
Here’s where I think our argument is happening. Sure, your opinion can never be wrong to yourself. Sure. You can have that. But to the general public your opinion can be wrong. And okay, there may be more discrepancies over what is “wrong or right” on a lot of issues (like whether Transformers 2 was a good movie) and less discrepancies on others (like 2+2=4) but the thing is, in both issues you can have a “wrong” opinion.
I agree that you can be “wrong” when looking at the social norm, but I do not think that the social norm is as cut and dry as you make it out to be, nor is it always right. Back in the day, it was “wrong” to treat blacks as equals, “wrong” to see women as equals, “wrong” to be attracted to your own sex, “wrong” to do this, “wrong” do that. Now, if we are going to keep with your definition of the word bad and wrong, because society accepts one thing, and views the other thing as bad or wrong, then we would have to say doing all these things is wrong. These issues had the majority on an opposite side, and though some people disagreed, it was still the majority, therefore it was what was right. Now, I know you would not agree that these things were right. But I’m sorry Dan, your opinion is wrong. Because it can be. Because at that time, society decided those things were bad and people were not equal. So once again, my sincerest apologies, but you, my dear friend, are wrong. You go against the norm, and you are wrong. Sorrys..
Now you might say that this is a bit of a stretch when talking about movies. I did pick something I knew you would disagree with, and you may call that a cheap blow, but its also being smart. Even if society says that a movie is bad, I can still believe it was good, and I am not wrong. Society has no authority to tell me my opinion is right or wrong. Though this clearly is not as sentimental of an issue as justice and equality, they are both opinions nonetheless. They cannot be wrong.
Emily,
You go girl! I felt that that was kind of a low blow, but sometimes people deserve it.
Look, when you say 2+2=5, you are wrong. When you say Transformers 2 was the best movie of 2009 I may disagree with you but that is your opinion. There is a difference between fact and opinion. When in the third grade we were shown to make this differentiation I was taught that a fact is something that is the same for everyone (sorry it’s an absolute qualifier but in the third grade that’s how we were taught). An opinion on the other hand may be different for different people. You cannot say someone’s opinion was wrong, as much as you want to you can’t. You cannot equate the fact of simple arithmetic to personal taste in movies. When you claim 2+2=5 you are ignoring the simple fact and logic put behind this decision. When you tell someone that they’re wrong for believing Transformers 2 was the best movie of 2009 and you’re being childish. Opinion and taste are on the same playing field not opinion and fact. I feel that someone’s taste in movies is like someone’s taste in ice cream. Everyone has their favorite but you can’t say anyone is wrong. My favorite flavor is in a three way tie between vanilla fudge ripple, mint chocolate chip and pralines and cream. My brother however likes chocolate and moose tracks. I will always think I’m right and he will always think he’s right. I can never prove him wrong because this is his opinion. Opinion is not a clean cut right or wrong; it’s a personal choice that depends on the individual.
Lawlz. I just did the same thing to you guys down a few posts.
I never said that the cultural standard was morally right or wrong; that’s always open to debate and ambiguity. But the moral standard is still something you have to hold yourself too, regardless. You were punished for helping runaway slaves a good 200 years ago, because slaves were inferior property and helping them was wrong. How can someone be punished for something if it isn’t wrong, by some standard? Even if you thought blacks deserved equal rights, society still told you that you were wrong. And you were punished for it. Was it morally “right”? Nope. But was it culturally right? Yeah.
And just as there is logic behind saying 2+2=4, there’s logic behind saying “you’re wrong if you think Transformers 2 was the best movie ever.” It’s not numerical proof, but rather horrible acting, stupid plots, offending stereotypes, etc. etc.
I feel like I’m talking in circles here: You can LIKE something. That is your opinion, and you aren’t comparing it to any cultural norm, and it’s perfectly acceptable for you to like your three ice cream flavors Erin. They’re the best, for you personally. There’s no problem there. But if you think that your three-way tie is the superior trifecta of ice cream flavors, compared to all others, based on a cultural level: you’re wrong. Liking something is different than honestly believing it is the best thing in the entire goddamn world.
Ok I think that helped a bit. “Liking something is different than honestly believing it is the best thing in the entire goddamn world.” (Fox)
I suppose this is my fault, we were not on the same page. I feel that we have different definitions on the title, “Best Movie of 2009,” I see this as just another way of claiming your favorite ice cream flavor; I never saw it with more weight. If I understand this correctly, which I might not as you so kindly pointed out earlier, you see that when someone proclaims that “Transformers 2 was the best movie of 2009” they are making a claim of certainty rather than personal choice. Best to me never had the idea that it was better than all the others it was just someone’s favorite.
So if Transformers 2 wasn’t the best movie of the year can anything be?
I would even go so far to say that no one knows the best movie of 2009 because no one has seen every movie made in 2009, this includes any form of video from YouTube to home videos to mass produced films in movie theatres. No one has seen every movie on earth that was created in 2009, so then there can’t be the best because there is no one to make that official decision.
I guess I see a bit more where you’re coming from but in all honesty I’m not comfortable with the idea of societal standards.
HEY LUKE!
First off let me just say how I like how you warned my about losing sleep over the ides of solipsism… been there done that lol :P
But ya, I agree with you. It’s basically an issue not worth getting into because you will literally (as we did in class) think or talk yourself in circles until you go crazy.
Basically by bringing up solipsism in what I said before was just to take my point to the extreme. If society can agree that 2+2=4 and the opinion that 2+2=5 is considered wrong than I think the same mentality can be applied to say… Transformers 2.
If that makes sense.
me*
ideas*
then*…. God damn it
I have to admit in class I was a bit lost in the conversation.
I thought Transformers 1 was amazing I absolutely loved it. Then when I heard Transformers 2 was coming out I wanted to see it, but when my friends came home and said it wasn’t as good as the first I was disappointed, so I waited until it came out on DVD. And while there were a few errors (Luke, I could not stand Megan Fox’s clean white jeans in the middle of the dusty desert) I still thought it was entertaining. So would I say it was a good movie? Yes. Do I think it was the best movie of 2009? No, that was without doubt Slumdog Millionaire. I believe this because Slumdog Millionaire was more in my genre; it had drama, romance, suspense and a great dance scene. But if someone else thinks that Transformers 2 was the best movie of 2009, fine. Why do they have to be wrong?
If the idea of nihilism is true and nothing exists then the social standards that Brian and Colby referred to in class don’t exist either. So why is the person who believes that Transformers 2 was the best movie of 2009 wrong? If there is no accepted belief in anything no opinion can be wrong either. If nothing exists or everything can be reduced to nothing, then you can’t prove ANYTHING exists. In my eyes the social standards, that as a society we should all accept a certain standard to measure movies against, seemed to be the crutch of your argument. In the spirit of nihilism, what is society? What is a standard? You can’t prove these things exist so you can’t prove you’re right either.
Just a taste of your own medicine, I don’t agree with nihilism but since you brought it up I threw it back at you. And think I did it justice…?
Erin,
If you’re going to bring nihilism into the actual rebuttals then no one is right obviously.
The thing is our society doesn’t work in a nihilistic type mind set. If we don’t use the nihilism mindset for 2+2=4 then why should we use it for whether or not Transformers 2 was a good movie or not (meaning you can never be right or wrong in your opinion of Transformers 2). If one thing is considered to be “absolutely right or wrong” in our society than everything must be considered “absolutely right or wrong”. NOTHING IS FACT! But we believe that somethings are. We tell ourselves that somethings are, so therefore you CAN’T exclude somethings. Opinions can be wrong in our society. If you were to tell me that my opinion on 2+2=5 is wrong, than I can rightfully tell you that your opinion that Transformers 2 is wrong.
We’re also not saying that someone can’t believe that Transformers 2 was the best movie of 2009 (though I agree Slumdog was waaay better). We’re just saying that if that’s what they believe, they’re wrong.
You’ve misinterpretted the use of nihilism here (I’m still not convinced that’s the right word for this, but the hell with it, I guess it’s what we’re running with). Nihilism is the tool which we’re using to help you understand our point: if nothing is a fact, then these “social standards” (which you distastefully label the “crutch” of our argument) are the only things that provide a sense of what is and what isn’t in our culture. Nihilism isn’t our entire argument, as rhetorically nihilism by itself is an annoyance. But we’re bringing it up to show you that there are intangible social standards that provide an arbitrary sense of right and wrong; and that standard is what says Transformers 2 was a definitively bad movie. You can still like it and enjoy it, and if you want you can full heartedly believe it’s the best movie of 2009. However, if that’s the case you need to accept that you’re also wrong.
Again, the “all is nothing” approach only has so much weight and can’t really stand on its own. If you want to say “What is society?”, you have to follow that up with something that empowers your own argument. Just throwing nihilism around isn’t enough, and I genuinely hope that’s not how I’ve come across. I’m just using it to point out that the world runs according to standards rather than hardline facts; and those standards, a general consensus by our culture, can be used to say an opinion is wrong. It’s not a factual black and white wrong like saying 2+2=5, but it’s still wrong nonetheless.
Right Brian. We’re not using (what we’ll call nihilism) to prove you wrong or counteract your points, we’re just simply using it to make you understand where we’re coming from.
As you said, “I’m just using it to point out that the world runs according to standards rather than hardline facts; and those standards, a general consensus by our culture, can be used to say an opinion is wrong. It’s not a factual black and white wrong like saying 2+2=5, but it’s still wrong nonetheless.”
This is basically everything we’re advocating.
“Erin,
If you’re going to bring nihilism into the actual rebuttals then no one is right obviously.” (Chamberlain)
I do not understand this argument of nihilism, if I can’t use it in a rebuttal then you can’t use it to prove your point. Fair?
So with nihilism aside, how can it be fair to say someone’s opinion is wrong?
Not fair; to put it bluntly you’re using it wrong. It’s not the crux of of our argument, whereareas you’re trying to make it the center of yours. We’re saying that you need these standards because these standards are why the world makes sense. You cannot throw them out, just because you don’t want your opinion to be wrong. The only reason I even mentioned nihilism is because I want to illustrate the importance of standards.
Brian, it’s fine that you bring standards in to this, but you have to understand that it’s an opinion and standards change based on each and every person, which is exactly what Erin and Emily are getting at. It’s all about personal taste and personal standard, you can’t tell me that my standards are wrong, I set them myself and if my standards say that Transformers was a good movie, than TO ME it was a good movie. Just because more people dislike it than like it doesn’t mean you can group them together and say that they are right, they just all see similar things. If you band together the amount of people that do like it, you might find there equally significant in numbers.
Let me try to be more clear: I’m advocating for two different standards here:
There is a personal standard, under which you will never be wrong because it’s your own personal feelings. That’s exactly what you’re talking about Miranda, and you’re 100% correct.
Then, there is the cultural standard that is held by our entire society, under which I *can* be wrong if my personal opinion clashes with the cultural opinion.
Let’s go for an extreme example, shall we?
A child molestor thinks that raping little kids is perfectly okay. The cultural standard says it’s horrible. So, we say the child molestor is wrong. We lock him up in jail because his opinion doesn’t jive with our cultural opinion. Under the argument that you/Erin/Emily are presenting, the child molestor has been wronged here. How *dare* we tell him that his own personal opinion is wrong? We can’t hold him up to a cultural standard! We have no right to put him in jail! I mean, he only raped little kids. If he thinks that’s right, who are we to tell him he’s wrong?
That is your argument; as you’ve presented it. I don’t think that line of thinking is right, for the reason mentioned above: I could care less about differing opinions on a movie, but we need definitive cultural standards to rule by for more important things. You *can’t* say that everyone’s opinion is right.
So how about for what Emily is saying… About sexuality. Is it the same when a good majority of the population says it’s wrong?
Yep. Culturally, the advocates for the “right” moral choice are wrong.
Again, cultural standards don’t necessarily mean they’re morally sound standards. But they are standards nonetheless, and we have to adhere to them.
Actually, you don’t have to adhere to them. But if you don’t adhere to them, then society as a whole has every right to label you as “wrong”.
Brian, ouch. I only brought up nihilism because in class that seemed to be the response to everything Emily claimed, when she said everyone knows what two plus two is. The reply was what is two, what is four? I feel that this incessant questioning was getting your argument nowhere, you just kept frustrating Emily and myself. I agree that standards help the world function. And I resent the fact that you claim I was, “throw[ing] them out, just because [I didn’t want my] opinion to be wrong.” I was trying to show you that it is muy frustrado when someone just bashes your argument by asking, why? Some things you just have to except because they are a standard, a desk will always be a desk that is a fact. My favorite movie will always be my favorite movie, the best movie of 2009 is a society standard that is hard to determine but, what is right for the majority is right for the whole.
The only reson we were saying “what is two? what is four?” is to prove that techniquely you can’t prove anything as fact.
” I feel that this incessant questioning was getting your argument nowhere, you just kept frustrating Emily and myself.”
You guys are getting fustrated because you’re not hearing what we are ACTUALLY trying to prove. We’re not advocatig nihilism. We’re just saying how nothing is fact and everything is based on standards and therefore opinions can be wrong.
You’re getting too hung up on the nihilism… it’s not our crutch it’s just a point…
Things are facts and things are opinion, there is a difference. I am sitting in a chair, no matter what anyone says I know this is true. When someone says I’m sitting on a dinosaur they are wrong. A chair is a chair and a dinosaur is a dinosaur. I’m not trying to be repetitive but those are facts that you just need to accept. Opinions are different, when I say that the couch is more comfortable to sit on than the wood chair I’m sharing my opinion. You cannot tell me that I’m wrong because I’m not, I like the couch more than wood chairs, if you don’t fine. Saying that Transformers 2 was the best movie in 2009 is someone’s opinion which cannot be wrong, saying that Transformers 2 was the only movie made in 2009 is wrong. It’s not someone’s opinion it’s someone ignoring the plain and simple facts that will always be true. It is a fact that I received a 100 on the Math A regents, I did that I have the score to prove it. If nothing is fact and everything is opinion how can you prove that my hundred isn’t a fact. (I’m not challenging you, or perhaps I am… No really I just don’t see how you can construe that to be opinion. In my eyes, it’s math it’s right or wrong, it’s black and white. Where is that up for interpretation?) It would be an opinion to say sandals are the most comfortable shoe because some people may disagree. I happen to like moccasins better but I feel that comfort is up to personal interpretation, thus an opinion. I see a clear cut difference between fact and opinion and I don’t see how others see the lines as blurred.
To be fair, the incessant “What is 2? What is a chair?” questioning is much more a Colby tactic than mine, and even him and I have different opinions on this topic even if we’re ostensibly coming from the same side. I’m not trying to use it to tear down anyone’s argument (though that’s what you can use it for; it’s just really freaking annoying), I’m just trying to use it to support my own argument. I think that was the difference: I’m using it as a shield rather than as a sword. I’m not *trying* to frustrate you, I’m just using it to help illustrate the importance of standards. Some other people, well, I can’t be held accountable for them :P But I completely understand why it’s “muy frustrado” haha.
Standards are important, true. I completely agree, we classify loads of stuff when they adhere to certain standards. Living things all fit the six criteria of life: they must have cells, their cells must be organized, they must use energy, they must adhere to homeostasis, they must grow, and they must be able to reproduce. These are clearly outlined and true facts. The idea of best is based on opinion because there is no set standard; no one says what the best movie of the year must have. Perhaps the best movie of the year must have profited 40 million dollars, maybe it has to have camera angles that vary, and maybe it has to have sound. I don’t know. If there was some sort of movie rubric to grade all the movies on then I could see where the topic of best movie of the year has a clear right or wrong answer. Because there are obvious things outlined to qualify the best movie of the year. For this to be a right or wrong fact there must be an outline of the standards set by society. It is unfair to leave it up to the ambiguous societal standards you had mentioned to qualify good and bad.
Well, then what about the actual movie awards? What about the Academy Awards, the Oscars? How do they define the best movies of the year? Anything with the qualifier “best” IS based on standards, and these prestigious awards DO have rubrics. Transformers 2 DIDN’T win the Oscars because it WASN’T the best movie; so saying it was the best movie of 2009 is wrong. The Oscars say so, and their rubrics/standards come from our cultural ones.
I have to say, I’m an Ebert fan. But one thing I did find questionable was his constant responding to those who commented. He addressed some who agreed with him, but others who didn’t. He even tried to justify his opinion at times, for example convincing someone it was the toys they loved not the movies. If one is a good film critic, I think, they don’t need to try and further defend their opinion to others who don’t believe it. The review should be its own entity, and if Ebert needs to interject in the comments to further prove his point, it wasn’t a good review. I understand where it might be frustrating to have people telling you your wrong (let’s face it, Michael Bay is the Henry Clay of Hollywood- he can try and try but he’s always going to fail), but a film critic should recognize that a review stands on its own, and to pinpoint specific people and argue with them is like releasing a movie in cinemas and having to go to each individual theatre to explain the movie before the audience sees it- the work should stand on its own. Thus, I like Eberts argument, and I think he does raise good points- the poor dialogue, etc., but he should let the piece stand on its own. Why respond to individual people? It only makes him seem less sure of himself.
hahaha Yeah I never really noticed that Zack.
I agree totally. He seems unsure after his first review and he needs to further convince people of his points. I did like what he wrote but if he was so confident that he was correct (like he comes off to be) he wouldn’t of had to justify his points after some people commented back angrily. It’s like he’s edging the people on further. He’s trying to pick a fight and can’t accept the fact that some people disagree with him… which I understand since I’m the same way. But if he was as professional as he puts himself out to be he would just let it be.
Zach, I completely agree with what you are saying. It just shows how utterly unsure of himself he is and not confident in his own argument if he feels the need to have to directly respond to individuals. For my research project I used a blog in my argument. One thing that I noticed was the creator wrote his piece first and then just let the blog go where it wanted too. At first I was screaming at the guy in disgust and anger for not defending his argument from the stupid idiots who were blabbing on making weak, uneducated, inhumane comments. But then I realized that this is exactly what he wanted. He needed to show what others thought about the situation and let other common Americans blog themselves in order to support his argument and refute what the other bloggers had posted. The argument is strengthened when someone else backs your argument not you yourself going back to defend it.
I agree as well Zack. I think that anyone who has to justify their argument is just merely stating that they were unsure of their original argument in the first place. And I also agree that he should have just read the comments he received and wrote a simple answer (if he wanted to respond so badly) and said, “I understand what you are all trying to say but you’re wrong” or something like that. Most of the people he talks about anyway are the ones who disagreed with him and questioned his knowledge due to his age, so I think that response would fit well. I like what Christina said about her article too. If someone can take the feedback they receive, then that should make them a better critic and give them an even better position to have for their argument.
I disagree with you, Christina. Ebert isn’t “utterly unsure of himself,” nor is he “not confident in his own argument.” Rather it shows how confident he is that he will not even let other arguments exist. It is his way or no way. He is pointing out the arguments that point out errors in their opinions, yes, but he is also picking out false stereotypes about critics that he wishes to refute. He is more addressing this discrepancy than he is furthering his criticism of Transformers. “I’m a Proud Brainiac” is Ebert’s argument that critics are not all-knowing experts who are narrow minded and closed to suggestions. He opposes this negative connotation by depicting his own evolution as a critic and how humbled he is to speak to more advanced writers in the field, such as David Bordwell. These details show his credibility as a critic as well as his open-mindedness. This is his entire purpose: to show he is entitled to his opinion and has an element of credibility to him over the “not sufficiently evolved” Transformers fans commenting on his review.
I’m sorry Caitlin but I have to disagree with you. If he is so confident in his argument then why should he have to fight every single “not sufficiently evolved Transformers fan?” If he was truly confident then he would be able to let his argument stand on its own, if he can’t than he mustn’t have written a very good initial argument. The point of a blog is to let it go where it wants to go, to let anyone comment on it. This doesn’t mean that only intelligent critics are going to comment but 12 year girls will feel the need to include their opinion. By Ebert, an established critic, defending himself against a 12 year old child shows that he is not confident and lessens the impact and credibility of his argument.
Zack,
I see your point and how you view Ebert. To some extent I see how one could think of him as a good critic, however, he seems to be un-sure of himself to the point where he has to defend most things that he says. Critics have to hold up to a certain standard i think, and when a critic falls short while constantly defending themselves it undermines their credibility. If one offers good insight and has a reputable perspective, then by all means agree with them and support their view. On the contrary, is the constant repetition a reiteration of how he feels towards something, or is it a way for Ebert to try and not only convince others but also himself that he demonstrates the qualities of a good critic. I think that the critics that only offer negative feedback on things isn;t really a good critic because they don’t offer anything that the director, writer, or restraunt owner for example can fix to improve on. Michael Bay has shown a variety of movies that he enjoys creating because they’re from things he envisioned…doesn’t necessarily mean that others will like it. Individuals like Ebert are out there to critique but it doesn’t mean they offer real ‘criticism’ that Bay could use to make his films more appealing.
Ashley, I agree that it his constant defending of his review tells us something. But, I don’t think it’s that he’s unsure of his review. I’m certain that he hates Transformers, and Bay’s directorial ineptitude – he’s not ambivalent about whether or not it’s an awful film. He cites many objective reasons (we’re ignoring the nihilism argument here, because I refuse to mull over the 50 some odd posts of circular logic regarding it) why Transformers is bad. I think that his need to defend his opinion comes from a need to be argued with, and to feel correct. I know that I love arguing with people, especially when I’m more informed than they are. And that’s what Ebert is doing here; he’s an expert on film, and the people that he argues with are mostly fanboys, or teenagers who love Megan Fox/Shia Labeouf. And so I don’t think that he’s trying to convince himself, or really even trying to convince anyone else; Ebert is just arguing because he’s already won, the movie is bad.
Let’s move forward. I think that perhaps you stumbled over your words when you said that offering only negative feedback makes them a bad critic because it provides the director/writer/restraunt (sic) owner with nothing to improve upon. When, in fact, offering negative feedback is exactly what these groups of people need. A pat on the back is nice every now and then, but that’s only enlarging our heads, not our ability to direct, write or manage a business. For instance, Mr. Eure offers us constructive criticism for almost everything we submit to him. He doesn’t feel a need to beat around the bush if we didn’t meet the standards that have existed since day one, or pad his criticism with undeserved compliments. And, while I hate to say it, Ebert is doing exactly that. He isn’t being nice about it; Transformers 2 sucked, and it’s his job to provide objective feedback.
One last comment. You seem to be inadvertently defending Michael Bay. Don’t. Nothing this man has done is even marginally creative. He’s done Transformers (toys, and cartoons before he ruined it), Nightmare on Elm Street (remake), Friday the 13th(remake), Pearl Harbor (I’m not even going to say why this isn’t creative, or why it sucked); see imdb if you need more examples of Bay’s failure at…well, everything. He didn’t “envision” any of these things. He saw a money cow that needed milking, and he obliged. He’s a parasite on the ass of creativity, and nothing more. And lastly (I promise this time), it isn’t Ebert’s job to say what Bay should do to un-fecal-matter (since I don’t think I should be dropping S bombs) his movies. That’s Bay’s job. Ebert did his job, Bay did not. But, without people like Bay, Ebert wouldn’t have a job, I suppose. No one wants to read reviews that rant and rave about every aspect of a movie – that’s just not entertaining.
Forgive me if this appears insulting, I did not mean it to be. Next time I’ll add some “:P” to make it sound nicer…. YEAH BRIAN THAT’S DIRECTED AT YOU!
…… :P
Luke, I think you offer some much needed insight, and i think its quite demonstrated so no need to think it’s impolite or mean. You offer your opinion and it’s valid. Opinions are. To discuss your first paragraph, I concur with the fact that michael Bay is somewhat of a “money cow” and wants to hoard in as much money as he can without really putting anything spectacular in. I don’t blame you for wanting to ignore his nihilism or the idea of discussing how bad pearl harbor or transformers was…i’m not in anyway defending him. Although it may seem i was, your point that you brought up about the fanboys of actors and actresses got me thinking. Why do critics write about a movie that they hated if they already know they are more informed then these crazed teenagers who mostly go to either one, stare at the hot actors and actresses or two, want to see things blow up? It may seem like they only want to go to do those to things. In some way though, I see why he has already won but in a perspective i think he constantly argues only to add to his ‘ego’ (I can’t really think of a better name). What I’m trying to say is that why keep arguing against these other people who disagree with him if he’s such an expert? Does it add to anything in society or his life?
Feedback is always important, whether it be ositive or negative. I think what i was attempting to say was that the consistent negative feedback doesn’t serve a major purpose. Let me explain. Ebert does provide objective criticism to the movie Transformers, similar to what Mr. Eure does, but the harping on the negative feedback doesn’t do anything when Michael Bay doesn’t want to change anything about his movies. Yes i concur that it’s Ebert’s job to offer criticism about why the movie sucked because he’s an expert, but why keep repeating the same criticism if nothing can be done about it. Absolutely Ebert did his job to criticize this movie, and i agree that Bay did not. Bay in Transformers offered nothing of interest in his movie…nothing that sparkeled or stood out. Bay’s job is to entertain his audience and no way did he even remotely do that. He epically failed.
Envisioning a movie is suppose to be the director’s/writer’s job…not that that happened or anything. The feedback i think is suppose to not only give critical points about the movie about what was done well…but to offer some sort of reference for what could have been better. If Mr. Eure gave us back our papers only saying “they all sucked,” then what would we know what to fix? I thing negative feedback is just as importent as positive feedback, but they have to be balanced.
In no way am I saying you’re wrong. Ebert when reading his critiques were actually telling people their opinions were wrong. Unless it’s something already proven, like the suckiness of Transformers, opinions really can’t be wrong. You brought up some very analytical points and it’s not insulting but thank you. :)
Wow, I completely regret coming into this conversation late…
I also completely agree with Brian and Dan and am probably going to just end up reiterating what they’re saying. Everything is what everything is because we have come to a popular consensus that, that is what they are. We have agreed that the word, “chair”, stands for the object upon which we sit, the word, “rhinoceros”, stands for the grey mammal that we can find in zoos, and the word, “truth”, is an idea that is based in fact. Now what is fact though? “Fact”, we have agreed, is an idea that we have already previously agreed on. The word, “Fact”, simply stands for the ideas upon which we have all already come to a consensus on. Now a lot of what we have already come to a consensus on is based on standards. For example, you have to be able to sit on a chair in order for it to be called a, “chair”. Rhinoceroses have to have four legs, and be mammals in order for them to be called, “rhinoceroses”. (There’s obviously more requirements, but I’m not going to give the scientific definition of a rhinoceros or a chair). All of these standards are based upon other standards, qualifications for, “mammal”, “able to sit”, “four legs”. Everything is based in standards. Therefore so are movies, and opinions. Yes, opinions are based on standards. If I say, “I really like that cat”, it can be true or untrue, I either like it or I don’t. The same thing goes for Transformers 2. I can say, “Transformers 2 was a good movie”. That can be true or untrue as well, it’s either a good movie or a bad movie. Transformers 2 happens to be a bad movie. It does not make the standards we have set for things to achieve good movie status. It is however in the range of standards we have agreed upon to achieve bad movie status. Therefore, Transformers 2 was a bad movie.
Now, I know whoever wants to argue against this is going to ask when everybody agreed upon these standards. Like chairs, and rhinoceroses we have never formally agreed that, they are, what we call them. But nevertheless we call them what we call them. These standards are innate. They have been developing since humans have been developing.
Mr. Eure can grade our papers because he grades them to a standard. There are good papers and bad papers. Movies can be good or bad in the same way, because like everything, they are held to a standard
P.S. Has anybody else noticed the tiny smiley face at the bottom of the page?
I AGREE SO MUCH. And i hate when people disagree when it comes to art. Honestly, in my mind, there’s bad art (i mean visual art, cinema arts, musical arts, etc). There are some things that are just…bad. I feel like humans are naturally resistant to criticism, and the whole ‘art is subjective’ B.S. was made just to protect an artist from being dubbed ‘bad’. Alot of art is subjective, I know for a fact most of the films i like alot of people would hate, and the same applies to everyone else- there are films we all like that another may not. But some art is just straight out bad. Transformers 2 is bad, and like you said, if most people believe that…. It technically is fact I suppose.
Zack I’m glad you brought up art. There’s a point when logic has to come in. The thing people are not noticing is you can like bad things. Like… let’s say there’s a horrible piece of art and its logically just a bad piece of art but for some reason you like it. That’s fine. You’re not “wrong” in liking it but you are “wrong” if you’re convinced it is good art.
People get too strung up on their personal opinions being wrong. You can like bad things. It’s not illegal. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as always… but come on… there’s a point where you need to accept that your opinion IS wrong.
“The thing people are not noticing is you can like bad things. ”
Yes, so true. But when you are the one who likes the “bad thing”, you’re never going to realize that it’s actually “bad”. It’s hard to distant yourself from calling the art piece or the movie enjoyable as opposed to good. Something that is enjoyable and something that is good are two different things.
For example, I saw the Last Song recently and I admit, I enjoyed watching it. But just because I had a good time watching it, doesn’t mean it was a good movie. Just because you enjoy Miley Cyrus’ entertainment, doesn’t mean she’s a good actress.
Quoted for truth. You can like something that’s bad. Your personal opinion can disagree with the cultural opinion. That doesn’t make you not wrong; but nonetheless your opinion is always free to disagree.
“Something that is enjoyable and something that is good are two different things.”
This is where people are being stubburn. They’re not able to see how these two things are different. Whether or not you like the movie is not the part that s wrong. You become wrong when you consider it a good movie when it’s actually bad.
Dan, I totally agree. Just recently, a friend and I were reading a list of the top 40 worst movies and we came across one of our all time favorite movies on that list. Cat in the Hat was ranked as the 9th worst movie. My friend and I were outraged! But then we thought about it. The acting is alright, the plot is basic and predictable, the characters aren’t very dynamic, the special effects are lacking and the musical numbers (though hilarious) are really, really, really bad. We solemnly accepted that Cat in the Hat is, in fact, a terrible movie. But that did not stop us from going home and watching it. Twice. It’s still high on my list of faves even though technically it’s bad. I accept it’s badness as a fact. But, to me, that doesn’t make me like it any less. It may not be up to our cultural standards but that does not mean it can’t live up to my personal standards.
Colby, first off, I am sitting here reading this conversation with my sister, and we both think that its wonderful that you noticed the smiley face. We both picked up on it when I first went to comment, and thought that nobody else would see, so thanks for being as equally observant as us. Even if it is observing pointless things.
Now, on a more serious note, it is no surprise that I disagree with you. What is surprising though, is that Melissa disagrees with you as well. We both know this rarely occurs. ( Mr. Eure, typically Melissa, my sister, and Colby, team up on me in arguments, so her disapproving of Colby’s opinion is a major shock.) I do agree that there is no way to prove something is a chair because the only reason it is called this is due to an agreement by society. I find that this analogy, though, doesn’t fully relate to calling a movie bad. It all has to do with the numbers. I can confidently say that the amount of people that would disagree with calling a chair a chair is much smaller of a number then the amount of people that would disagree with calling a movie bad. Bad and good are much more objective than calling a chair a chair. This is why they are an opinion, and why they cannot be wrong.
Yes Emily, the numbers are different. The numbers still exist though. The ratio might be more drastic for one over the other but the ratio will always be in favor of one side. The one side that it IS in favor of is correct and the other is wrong.
Dan, the numbers being different is what matters. When you say the one side that is in favor is correct and the other is wrong, that is a very drastic difference. The two are opposites. Wrong and right are the polar opposites. When talking about the word chair, and saying the majority of people believe that it is called a chair, this majority is a much bigger number than the people that disagree with this assertion. the difference between the two numbers IS drastic, therefore they can be called two drastically different things. Right and wrong. On the other hand, the opinion of a movie, is something that is much less drastic of a difference. And both sides, good movie, or bad movie, can be sanely justified. Whereas, calling a chair a hippo is insane. This is why I do not feel that opinions can be right or wrong, because it is too easy to disagree.
It’s 1942, and WWII rages across Europe. The Axis powers genuinely believe Hitler is their savior, a genius and powerful leader who will lead them to glory and victory. The Allies think he’s a bloodthirsty, genocidal lunatic who has stepped out of line. The numbers were a *lot* closer then, between the pro-Hitler and anti-Hitler camps. But was Hitler a savior, or a murderer? Was he good or bad? He was objectively bad, because his actions, when held up to a cultural standard, were bad.
The numbers don’t matter as much as the standard itself does. The standard exists for a reason that transcends pure numbers.
So what about strictly in Germany where the majority said that all Jews should be placed in internment camps? Does that make the Germans right because there was a clear majority in Germany, and until Americans came in “no one knew the internment camps were there”?
In Germany, it was *obviously* the cultural standard to persecute Jews. How else did Hitler get away with genocide against them? Because the standard was with him, and therefore people supported him. The Germans self contained were culturally right, because we’re looking at their own standard. On a national level, the national standard said they were wrong. Enter the Nuremberg trials. On a moral level, they were also wrong. Killing people isn’t cool.
Different standards exist, and it’s narrow minded to believe that your standard is the only right one and the only one you have to adhere to. There’s a bigger world out there, and just because it’s your opinion doesn’t mean that it’s always right.
“it’s narrow minded to believe that your standard is the only right one”
Then why is yours the only right one?
My standard isn’t the only right one. I thoroughly enjoyed the Alien vs. Predators movies, even though from an objective standpoint they’re garbage. My own personal standpoint can definitely be culturally wrong.
But I don’t think the cultural standpoint can be wrong. If I tried to overthrow the general standard and say that my own personal opinion was right, then I could see where you’re coming from. But I’m not making my personal opinion the cultural standard, I’m merely content to let my personal opinion not agree with the cultural standard. In essence, I can accept myself being wrong.
I’m not trying to insinuate that you guys are saying your own personal opinions are greater than the cultural one, but rather that you can’t say that everyone’s personal standard is on par with the general cultural one. I think the cultural one is more important, and by that template we can label something right or wrong.
Can I clarify something? By cultural standard are we talking about all the critics of the world collaborating and that making up a standard, or everyone who saw the movie collaborating to make the standard?
We’ve run outta room, Miranda :P The cultural standard is decided upon by the culture. That’s not one select group of people, or even all of the individual people’s opinions: it’s the sum of all of our thoughts, resulting in one unified standard. Sort of like a hive mind, or a greater consciousness or something. It’s not just the critics, it includes everyone who’s seen the movie. But it doesn’t matter if 1,000 people saw the movie and thought it was the best ever, and 3 critics saw it and said it was the worst: if the people who said it was the best have no argument, and the people who said it was the worst do: the critics still prevail. I want to stress that majority doesn’t play into this as much as everyone seems to think. The cultural standard is subtlely different from the mob mentality.
So if everyone who saw the movie said it was a good movie, and 3 people, lets say, said it was bad and picked off it’s flaws, then it’s bad.. right? Well, I’ll let alone the fact that that can’t be a cultural standard if only three people decide it’s bad. What if the people saying it was a good movie like it because of it’s flaws, or like it simply because it entertains them, which is what movies are meant to do. I see where you’re coming from, and you’re side of the argument is starting to make more sense in my mind, but you why is it a cultural standard if it’s a 3 to 1000 battle?
Hahaha, at least we’re making progress eh?
The key is that the cultural standard is just that: a cultural standard. It’s greater than the sum of its parts, and because of that it isn’t just some simple majority vote. If we followed the majority vote, then Christianity would be the definitive right religion and every other one would be wrong. That clearly isn’t the cultural standard though. Our cultural standard preaches tolerance.
My example was pretty bad, but what I’m trying to indicate is that you need something to back up your opinion to make it right. You need proof and evidence to prove your opinion and make it worthwhile, and if your opinion is just worthless then it will be weighted as such. Three strongly weighted opinions backed by evidence are greater than a thousand weightless opinions. Zack’s doing a much better job than I talking about critics and why their opinions matter so much to the cultural opinion down below. Pop down there to check it out.
Well, it goes without saying that, our culture has so many religions because we preach tolerance. Which is another way of saying no one’s religion is right and no one’s religion is wrong, they are just different. I don’t care how many critics say that the movie had bad acting, the point is the fact that it had bad acting may be the very reason I like the movie. And if everyone says they like the movie because the bad acting added to the entertainment, and three critics say it took away from the movie, doesn’t mean that the critics are right and the mob is wrong. Even if the numbers were closer, which are obviously more likely, no one is right. I’m not arguing this because I don’t want to admit that I’m wrong. My whole point is that you can’t be wrong if it’s your opinion. Take right now for instance. I’m not wrong. You’re not wrong. Now that’s pretty paradoxical, but neither of us are wrong, we’re just expressing how we feel (to put it nicely) BY THE WAY, THAT DOESN’T MEAN I AGREE WITH YOU! That just means that I understand that that’s your opinion, so it’s not wrong, it’s just not how I feel. Ya feelz? sorry, it’s midnight, I’m tired. Goodnight.
I feel like the numbers may be different because of the nature of the two different situations. While judging if a chair is a chair or not is relatively simple and easy to do, judging movies is harder and requires more expertise. Critics have this expertise. Most have been reviewing movies for a long time and have a larger base to compare Transformers 2 to. Also many know the technicalities in movie making as well as literary elements that may or may not hold value in the movie. They have seen many more movies than most of us. I believe that that difference in number is because judging a movie takes a more trained eye than judging a chair. If we look at the majority for just critics and film reviewers the ratio is going to be very different than looking at comments from your average Joe. Do you really trust the average Joe’s judgement? Most Americans can’t point out Afghanistan on a map (I don’t know where I got that from but I bet its true. I do know however that 1/3 of Americans believe evolution is fake)
Opinions can be right and wrong. The movie is either good or bad, it cannot be both. Therefore since the movie is bad, if you say the movie is good, you are wrong. If the movie were good and you said it was bad, then you would also be wrong. But that is not the case. Transformers 2 was a bad movie
Why is it bad?
Miranda,
It’s bad.
Critics have guidelines for what good movies are and what bad movies are. They study movies. They know movies. I can’t (nor can anyone else n our class) tell you EXCACTLY why it’s a bad movie but an overwhelming 16% of critics liked the movie and 20% of the general public. Obviously it was bad.
So because critics, who are paid to look for the bad in a movie and can very easily say they don’t like the movie(their opinion) and make up some reason why, we have to just go along. Now, I know that’s probably not the case, but if all critics said jumping off a bridge was right, would I be wrong not to jump off the bridge (I like to try to include that in every argument I have nowadays.)
I dont think critics just pull a reason of out of nowhere. There reasoning comes from experience of understanding what it takes to make a good movie. It’s like a teacher grading your paper. If you wrote a paper that you were really fond of and your friends and family were really fond of, but your teacher wasn’t. Who are you going to listen to? Obviously your teacher. It’s because your teacher knows, and understands what a good paper is. I mean, you could ignore the grade and not revise it but that would only be hurting yourself.
I don’t think critics base their reviews off their personal opinions; they base them on accepted facts. The same way I can say a Hollywood movie is better than a home video; critics know what makes a good movie and a bad movie. I suppose a critic can give a movie a really good review while not actually liking the movie at all. Critics should see merit in technique rather than convince people to agree with the critic’s own personal taste.
I have to agree with Emily. I went in search for more reviews on the movie, and yes there were a lot of reviews in favor of hating on transformers. That’s fine, not a lot of people liked it. For a lot of those people it’s their job to not like a movie, if it’s a home run, a real knock-out, they’ll give it a review, but it’s so much easier to point out flaws than to point out the good things. Now if we’re arguing that society’s consensus is right, I could name a few things that society has argued are “bad” and that would probably offend a few of you, and me because I don’t believe that society’s consensus is always right. But how about weight? Society has agreed that being overweight is a flaw… are they right? Because just a few weeks ago you argued they were absolutely wrong and that flaws shouldn’t be something we look for in people. How about sexuality? It’s not always accepted by society. It used to be that it wasn’t accepted at all, but now it’s growing in acceptance. But there’s no clear majority and if there was, it would be in favor of society not accepting it. See what we mean when we say a general consensus opinion isn’t fact?
I see what you mean Miranda, but I believe there are some societal decisions that are black or white. With movies, it may be more clear cut than sexuality or weight. Also, whether it’s a good majority or a bad majority, it’s a majority. Of course I have to bring the Holocaust into it (because what good is an argument without referencing the holocaust?), but anti semitism was a clear majority. It wasn’t a good one, but it was one. The same is often with various forms of art- if a society is really religious they probably won’t like Marilyn Manson, if a group of people are hardcore vegans they probably won’t enjoy Damien Hirst, etc.
Yeah, but that doesn’t make it a “right” or “wrong” that only means that society had a clear majority. Which is the whole point. Just because there is a slight majority or even a decent majority leaning to one thing doesn’t mean their opinion is right, while someone else had a clear wrong opinion.
The “weight” argument is really good Miranda. Props. I think that it is *still* a cultural standard: being overweight is considered a bad thing. I don’t think that cultural standard is right at all, but nonetheless it’s a standard and it exists for a reason. If I honestly believe being 450 pounds would make me attractive, that’s my personal opinion. But if you compare that to the main cultural opinion, I’m wrong. If I was actually 450 pounds I wouldn’t be attractive at all. We can debate all day whether that’s right or not, but the point still remains that my opinion is wrong.
You can also look at the weight thing from the other side. You can be underweight and think that being 80 pounds is an ideal weight. You can starve yourself/make yourself throw up and believe that that is the right thing to do. But then, you would be wrong. Not only is that a personal opinion up against a cultural opinion, I think it is also a matter of reality. Maybe reality is too broad of a word…but when personal opinion isn’t in tune with cultural/ society opinion, then that opinion is bound to be wrong.
Well, the point isn’t that I want you to be wrong, it’s that it’s not always cut and dry and you can’t just point and say “you’re wrong” just because a majority agrees. Based on millions (exaggeration) of examples that we can debate over, no one is right, no one is wrong, because it is an opinion and we CAN argue over it. That is my point. To be honest, I’m not here to defend the movie, I’ve never seen it. That’s not the point. The point is you can’t just say someone’s opinion is wrong.
Based on your child molester scenario (which I’m posting here, because I’m arguing with you in three different places and I know this isn’t where you stated it but I’m not going to start a completely different response to reply to that)
It puts someone else, a child, in harms way, and that’s where we, yes as a society, draw the line. However, this is where the numbers come in. It’s not like the numbers are close. Yes there are quite a few nutcases running around saying let’s molest little children, but there are more people realizing that it’s putting someone in harms way, and to protect everyone, we declare that wrong. You’re not protecting anyone by saying Transformers 2 was a bad movie, and you’re not protecting anyone by saying whoever thinks otherwise is absolutely, and undeniably wrong. You’re angering them by saying they aren’t are wrong in thinking their personal opinion.
I understand your concern, and your belief that the numbers and lives affected matter. But I think the principle of the standard transcends that. You can’t say “Well, since the numbers work here it’s okay” or “Well, you don’t have enough evidence here for us to consider it wrong”. I fear that people have become so wishy washy now a days, and are afraid to take a hardline stance. Compromise isn’t always your friend.
Child Molestation is wrong. If someone believes that it’s right, and that’s their opinion: well, they’re wrong. I’m pretty sure we can all agree on that.
Transformers 2 is a bad movie. If someone believes that it’s a good movie, and that’s their opinion: well, they’re wrong. I’m pretty sure we can all – oh wait, we can’t all agree on that. Why not?
All I did was replace Child Molestation with Transformers 2. We’re looking at the same exact idea, the same exact principle. You can’t say that it only works sometimes and not others, arbitrarily. This idea of right and wrong, in relation to standards, either works all the time or none of the time. So which is it going to be?
It’s not arbitrary as to where the compromise comes in. If it harms someone’s life it’s wrong. That’s a clear consensus. The numbers are WAY in favor of it being wrong. As in, not a simple majority, as in almost everyone in our society agrees to that. Transformers isn’t harming anyone. And the numbers aren’t overwhelmingly in favor of one over the other. And I’m not just talking about critics, I mean everyone who went to see Transformers.
Another thing. I never saw Transformers, so it’s not like I’m defending the movie. If it was a great movie and everything was the same but instead people said it was a good movie and we were saying anyone calling it a bad movie was wrong, I’d still be saying the same thing. It’s not that I can’t see that it’s a bad movie, I’m indifferent on that.
Well, I don’t think that child molestation is wrong, even if it does harm someone else. That’s my personal opinion, and you’re telling me my personal opinion can’t be wrong. But you’re saying child molestation is definitively wrong. How can the child molestor be right in his opinion, when you’re also saying he’s wrong? See where the logic falls apart? Under what me, Dan, Colby, and others are arguing, there is no failure of logic. The child molestor is just wrong, his personal opinion be damned.
I’m not arguing about Transformers anymore either, I mean it was a bad movie but I don’t really care that much. What I care about more are these standards we’re using, and the fact that people don’t think an opinion can genuinely be wrong. That leads to compromise, and compromise can lead to very bad things…
yes, well under what you’re saying, torture would also be wrong, right? Well, earlier in the year, you argued that under certain circumstances, torture could be ok. So you’re wrong.
my point is that when someone else is put into harm things change. CLEARLY, since the three ultimate rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Well, what if my “pursuit of happiness” is to kill people, well then I’m taking away someone’s life, which is a God-given right, and that’s where I’ve crossed the line. When someone becomes harmed, things change, and that’s just instinct. But with something trivial, you’re not harming anyone, so you can’t point and clearly so, Nope, you’re wrong.
Torture is culturally wrong. That’s why we don’t do it.
I don’t agree with that, I do support torture in some cases. I mean, I have a man-crush on Jack Bauer, how could I not support torture?
The difference here is that my system lets me be wrong. I’m perfectly content being wrong; my personal opinion doesn’t mesh with the cultural norm and I understand and accept that I’m wrong. We’ve talked about this before: you need to be able to accept when you’re wrong. The people arguing that “No, opinions can’t be wrong!” are trying to circumvent that, to prevent themselves from having to admit that they are wrong.
And you’re just supporting my point! You’re setting up a double standard. If child molestation is wrong, then Transformers 2 is a bad movie. Both adhere to the same idea of the cultural standard. You can’t remove the entire standard principle and just decide “Well, child molestation is wrong just because it’s more important”. I’m not indicating that child molestation isn’t more important, but you can’t remove the principle. You say it works sometimes for somethings and it doesn’t work for others: It either works all the time or it never works. Pick one. The child molestor is wrong because he defies the cultural standard, not because he’s harming someone. The harming someone plays into the cultural standard, but in the end the standard is the over riding factor. You can’t just remove that.
If Brian believes that Torture is okay in some cases that is his opinion, which he believes is true. He was arguing for it because he believes it is right. My opinion is that torture is never right. I believe that torture is always wrong. If my opinion is that torture is always wrong, and Brian’s is that torture can be right, we have conflicting opinions. In the end both of our opinions cannot be right. Only one of us is right, which would mean the other’s opinion is wrong. torture cannot be simultaneously okay and not okay. One of our opinions is wrong. You guys don’t understand that an opinion can be wrong. Pointing out that Brian’s statement in this post conflicts with a statement he made six months ago, just so that you can call him wrong is rhetorically ineffective and a bit of a punch below the waist.
I think what’s being said here over and over again is that things can be wrong when being placed in comparison to society. Every opinion has the opportunity to be placed against a majority, and simply because the majority has the numbers, this opinion is considered wrong. To them. But because this “them” is the majority, we take it as simply wrong without a qualifier. I agree with this. That is just simply logical. The thing is, there are two wrongs. Wrong to society, and wrong to yourself. If you state an opinion as your own personal ideal or belief, you cannot be wrong, because in that sense, society does not matter. The opinion is for you, and only you. If I thought Transformers was good, to me, I am right. I enjoyed the explosions, and would see it again and again if I had the chance. You can say that, based on society’s standards, you are wrong, and you might be right. But based on my own, internal, standards, I am not wrong. Its my own thought, and there is no right and wrong in your head.
Hey Em,
What you said is what I was saying before. You can never be wrong in your own mind and technically your mind is the only thing that you can prove true, so I guess that’s al.l that matters.
But still you can be considered wrong by society.
I can understand why Ebert gets annoyed when people criticize him. He’s just doing his job, and as a movie critic, his job is to criticize films and provide his opinions and insight on them. He just happens to be a critic who is hard to impress and can often come across as harsh and abrasive. But, I don’t think that the movie was totally terrible. Yes it was severely lacking in content and meaning which is important in movies, but it was at least entertaining. Transformers is one of those movies that you just watch, there’s nothing to get or understand, it consists solely of explosions and robot action. So for people who like to “see stuff get blowed up real good,” its perfect. The fact that the lines are totally stupid and cheesy and most of the things that happen are totally ridiculous and impossible, just adds to the fun of the movie. It doesn’t have to be meaningful.
Well i guess it depends on the person. Honestly, I can’t sit through a movie with a P.O.C. script that’s intended to please and not prompt thinking, so I think that’s subjective. I do, however, think a good film critic HAS to look for meaning, and a good script, good acting, etc. because otherwise what separates Ebert from the people commenting on his review? A film critic needs to be able to break films apart to a sick measure, because that’s their job, ya know?
Zack, I totally agree with you. It’s like that with any other critic- art reviews, book reviews, food reviews, it’s all the same idea. There are certain people out there who are experts in these kind of fields and that’s what seperates their opinion from the general public’s. They have experience, they’ve gained enough credibility to be at the position to openly judge a movie, an art piece, a book, or a restaurant.
Right,
If critics exist there must be standard for what good and bad is. Critics generally take subjective comments out of their review. They won’t say, for example, “My mother was a robot who could transform and I really connected with this movie. I give it two thumbs up.”
Ebert comments in how the movie is just metal and explosions. That’s okay if you lke that but it doesn’t by any means make it a good movie. If there wasn’t a standard for what good and bad is then everythig would be subjective and nothing would ever be considered bad or wrong.
Dan, prepare yourself. I agree with you on what you are trying to prove, but I don’t think you’re wording it correctly. Thanks to you saying “If there wasn’t a standard for what good and bad is then everything would be subjective and nothing would ever be considered bad or wrong.” I get it. That’s like saying something smells bad, like vomit. Someone may say that it’s there favorite smell, but they are wrong in saying that it smells good. However, when you say your opinion is wrong you are seemingly doing is attacking their opinion, and saying that they are in every way absolutely wrong, and if I feel to myself I am right by saying vomit smells good and someone comes and tells me, nope you’re wrong, it’s almost like you are saying stop thinking that, you’re wrong.
I do understand what you are saying, and with that I thank you for finally coming through with the logic of it.
I guess maybe if I said it that way instead of in complex analogies we would have reached this conclusion faster, eh? :P I’m glad you get our point of view though.
YAY! MIRANDA TURNED TO THE DARK SIDE! We have cookies so you’ll be glad you joined.
I guess the way we worded it was kind of confusing, especially since I’m better at verbally expressing things than I am via text (as you can tell by my theatrics in class). But anyways, thanks for seeing where were coming from, and don;t worry, I think all of us (me Colby, Brian ect.) understand where you’re coming from too.
I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that reviewers need credibility. Anyone can watch a movie or read a book and then form an opinion about it. In this situation, no one’s opinion is better than another. No one’s opinion is wrong because opinions, by definition, cannot be wrong. I don’t know if I would trust a movie reviewer who has a lot of experience reviewing movies. This “expert’s” review would probably be more critical than an ordinary person’s review. I don’t even understand why we need reviewers. Can’t we all just go and see movies and then form our own opinions on them? Most of us go to see the movie regardless of what the critics say anyway.
Madeleine, I agree. Movie critics don’t need to be experts and some of them probably aren’t. Critics just need to review the movie holistically. They need to set some personal standard, so at least their own reviews are consistent. But, whether or not a movie critic is an expert, they are basically sharing their opinion; now, of course no one’s opinion can be wrong, that should also mean no one’s opinion can be right. Why should we hold their opinion above our own? I think that a random person’s opinion on any given movie may be just as valuable as a critic’s. We should just be able to go to the movies and experience it for ourselves.
I agree Taylor. Critics are just people, just like you and me, who report their opinions of something, however they target a much larger audience in exchange for money. Same concept though. I agree that critics must “set some personal standard, so at least their own reviews are consistent.” That being said, I think that this personal standard that you speak of is based in expertise. Movie critics critique movies for their job and therefore, must be very knowledgable of movies, directors, actors, and genres. This level of expertise separates professional critics from ordinary bloggers, like the ones responding to Ebert’s Transformers review. To respond to the other part of your post, though they are professionals, critic’s opinions should not be held above your own. Through the posts criticizing Ebert’s review, it has been made very clear that people can be angered to have a critic disagree with them. I think that people like that should respect Ebert for his opinion and courage to give such a widely anticipated and enthusiastically received movie such a negative view. Instead of calling Ebert “an old fart,” they should simply consider his opinion; it is just as valid as their own. In the end, you will remember your perception and opinion of something, not what your friends said or the movie critic wrote about it.
I agree with what you said Cait. But to add, people must also understand that calling someone an “old fart” for not enjoying the movie is somewhat expected. How many movies when you look in today’s newspapers have reviews that state things like “One of the best movies of the year!…the greatest love story of our time!…the best depiction of a struggle for life in 50 years, I would wholeheartedly recommend it, A+!”. Maybe once in a blue moon (i mean where do all the quotes raving about the movie on coming attractions come from anyways?) Maybe people are just sick and tired of seeing critics put down movies that they themselves found enjoyable. They may just want to see a critic admit that they actually ENJOYED a movie like they did. Only reading criticism for most movies just may have pissed enough people off to react, and the fact that it was Transformers 2 was a great movie to battle about.
Then again, if good reviews are found so far and few in between, what is that saying about the movie industry today? Maybe it has finally run its course.
Ok, honestly I think that second paragraph is just a bit dramatic. While the negative stereotype that critics are routinely negative, they often try to highlight the good parts of something too. If a movie had a couple humourous moments, a critic will usually say so. Will critics ever be overly enthusiastic about something? Rarely. But this is to be expected. After all, a critic’s job is to pick apart something and evaluate all of its parts and how they contribute to the whole.
Kaity, although the critics may be criticizing today’s movies and film industry, the public is still flocking out to see every movie. So I don’t think that the movie industry has run its course. In fact, I think it will never run its course. I think that it will always change to appeal to its audience and make money. It will change technology wise- there will be easier ways to view the movies and better special effects and the stories will change too, maybe instead of creating series of movies based on toys and novels there will be a period of original screenplays again. The only reason I think that the movie industry won’t become obsolete is because people LOVE money. The movie industry CAN’T become obsolete because that would be leaving an avenue to make money open, it will always change to suit its audience so that directors, actors, producers, etc. will make the money that the want.
I think critics are there to set a standard. Without critics, how do we know who to give the movie awards to? Or how we’re going to rate resturants on the Zagat Survey? It may be a popular opinion but I think critics also point our the *best* of what there is. The popular opinion may not always be the best thing. Think about the Twlight series, and the Twlight movies. They’re not considered the “best” books or movies yet millions of people read and see them. If you were an avid reader or movie go-er you would understand that there are much better books and movies out there that you think people should read or see instead. If you just follow the popular opinion, you might miss out on some really great things.
I definitely see what you mean. With regards to the awards thing. But in that type if situation the critic is reviewing movies not based on popularity and other frequently used criteria to rate a move; they are looking at the technical aspects of the movie. The plot, the acting, the costumes, the special effects. A reviewer’s opinion could be that one movie’s costumes are better than another’s. That reviewer may think that bright colors make better costumes in a movie but I’m pretty sure awards have a rubric that the candidates are judged upon. So, one critic’s personal opinion may go against the rubric. That doesn’t make the critic wrong though. It just makes it so the judging is fair, a bit less subjective and arbitrary than a critic just choosing which he or she likes the best.
If each critic has their own opinion and taste when it comes to movie just like everyone else, then why is their opinion seen as more important? Anyone is capable of forming an opinion on something, and like some of you stated earlier, it can’t be wrong because it is an opinion. Why do people strive to impress critics? They’re not doing anything differently from the rest of the population except voice their opinions to the public. What makes the opinions of critics superior/ more influential to that of the public?
I would say critics seem superior because they are experts in their field. If they are critiquing restaurants they have experience in the field of eating or going to restaurants, if they are critiquing movies they have some knowledge of the technical aspect of movies and like movies enough to spend time critiquing them. But, this brings up the argument in Ebert’s article about the question “what makes you an expert?” It is true even though critics may be well versed in their subject, what makes their opinion better than anyone else’s? Although that question has a negative connotation, I feel that it needs to be asked of critics because we often hold them above us because they have the courage to publicize their opinions.
Taylor,
I agree with your point that critics’ opinions are superior to others because they are experts in specific fields. Critics have more experience than the majority of Americans do. They have seen a much wider spectrum of different movies or foods, ect. Critics use their knowledge of past reviews that they made to help them to set a standard of what they feel a good movie is and what it should be. So, when they criticize a movie, they criticize the parts that should have been made differently in order to meet “the standard.” The more reviews that critics make, the higher “the standard” gets, and the harder it will be for movie makers to please them.
Madeleine, I gotta disagree. Yes, personal opinion and preference make a movie reviewer biased in a sense, but it’s not like any other public figure we look to for advice is objective either. One could argue that the president makes his entire career off of his opinions. Society naturally looks to those who have strong opinions, as they tend to be the leaders, and, at some point, you had previously stated the lack of need for movie reviewers. I believe people just want a strong opinion to guide them- that’s why we elect a president, why we have supreme court justices, and why we have movie critics (I believe).
A strong opinion is not necessarily a logical one. Plenty of strongly-opinionated people are not and will never be good leaders. I hate to bring up such negative stuff but school shooters have really strong opinions but that doesn’t mean others agree or that they are leaders. In the analogy you’re trying to make between movie critics and politicians I think it is more valid to say that the president is like the director of the film and the people who comment on his actions (journalists, news people, political cartoonists etc) are like movie critics. A president’s job is based on his or her opinions but not the same type of opinion as a critic would provide. Strong opinions can guide us; but not always.
I think that we are all getting a little too wrapped up in certain words. What is the meaning of fact and opinion, a “good” movie vs. a “bad” movie? We all get too caught up in the logistics of a movie. As Zach said Bay isn’t the best director, but we shouldn’t harp solely on the screenplay. As noted by Mr. Eure this movie is one of the top ten biggest grossing films of all time. We have to give him some credit for that. Just because the critics only gave it a 16% approval rating the public obviously liked it. Even after the degrading, harsh, negative reviews came out people still went to see the movie for themselves. Their first reaction isn’t to break down the movie scene by scene, line by line, simply to take the movie in as a whole. And as a whole the movie wasn’t “bad” in the sense that you left feeling entertained. In the end that is what Bay was trying to accomplish and that is what he did. I doubt he was shooting for a multitude of awards like the “magnificent” Casablanca. How many people have actually seen that movie? It what makes a movie great the number awards it receives, and critic reviews, or the number of people who view it and the money it brings in?
A movie can be judged on the artistic merit or its popularity. It’s the critic’s job to judge the movie based on artistic merit not popularity. If Michael Bay directed Transformers 2 with the sole purpose to entertain and nothing more, then he has accomplished that. But I doubt that’s all he was aiming for. That’s like settling on the stars while you were really shooting for the moon (I know, SO cliché =X). Of course he had bigger hopes for the movie. What director wouldn’t? What’s the point of pouring million of dollars into special effects if all you were going to get was a bunch of action addicted fans applauding you? Wouldn’t you want awards for something like “best visual effects”, or something? It’s one thing to please your general audience but it’s another thing to please the people who are going to be judging you.
Kaylin, i agree with you when you say that the critic’s job is to judge a movie based on its artisitc merit. Critics are the ones who should break down a movie to its nitty-gritty and expose their personal views on the faults of the movie, faults that the average movie goer wouldn’t notice.
However, i disagree that it really will effect the director if they dont get anything more than “action addicted fans”. As long as the movie ends up making alot of money for them, the satisfaction recieved from winning an award would hardly compare. The basic point of movies is to entertain, and whether it recieved good reviews or awards or not, doesn’t matter. If you made millions, you accomplished your job. Directing is your career, that’s what you get paid for. Having an award sit on your mantel collecting dust gives little feeling of accomplishment when you compare it to your new bugatti out in front your new 25 room house.
I agree with both of you. I think that when judging a movie, you can do it on artistic level and on an entertainment level. Though, I disagree with you Kaity, when you say it does not effect the director if they get an award. Some people direct movies as a career, but also as an art form. They want to impress there viewers and appear to do what they do well, even well enough to win an award. Now, there are some directors that couldn’t care less. If they make a lot of money, there goal is accomplished. The award has no purpose. On the other hand, there are some directors that couldn’t care less about the money. If they are able to impress one person, that is satisfaction enough. And then, there are even the directors, that stride to meet BOTH goals, win awards AND make money. It all really depends on the person.
The thing that I disagree with you on Christina is that people didn’t go see Transformers because they liked the movie, they went to see it because… IT WAS TRANSFORMERS! C’mon, everyine had one. They were awesome toys. Honestly I think Bay is a sorry excuse for a director who just wanted to make a lot of money off a movie that was guaranteed to get a lot of views. People don’t care about the plot before they go see Transformers… they just care how many scenes Optimus Prime is in.
And last time I checked, Optimus Prime being in a movie doesn’t automatically qualify it as “good”… even if a lt of people go and see it.
You know, I think that the reason people go to see ‘Transformers’ and ‘iron man’ is because they play on the nostalgia of their demographic. People remember playing with transformers, and they remember perhaps reading iron man. They feel OBLIGATED to see it. Like the Cukeaduke said, “They went to see it because…IT WAS TRANSFORMERS!”. To not see it is like shoving your prized pokemon cards into a furnace- people feel like they can’t just ignore a childhood gem when it’s screaming for their attention.
That may be true Zack, but I still think that it has something to do with the director, since he was the director for both movies, people were able to see the potential and quality of his films the first time and still went to go see it again. The people could have just wanted to see Optimus like Dan said, but if it was that much of a suckish movie the first time, then I doubt those people would torture themselves with to go see the second just because it is Transformers, but that could just be me.
Sure Bay could have been shooting for some awards, but in his head his main focus was to make money, to manipulate and leech off peoples love for transformers. Like Dan had said they were a beloved toy that people want to see move and talk in a movie like they did in their imaginations. He captivated a huge audience and I have to give him a round of applause for that accomplishment. I think the amount of people who go to see the movie should be a factor in whether or not an award is received. Sure the hurtlocker was a magnificent movie and won a ton of awards but not a large mass of people flocked to see it. They didn’t come out and spread the word to all their friends and lead to the same domino effect that transformers or Avatar had. I’m not saying that this necessarily makes transformers a good movie but it definitely is worth recognizing.
Eh. I agree with a lot of the things you said Christina but I don’t agree with some. I would definitely NOT give Bay a round of applause as you said. He took the easy way out in this movie. It wasn’t his idea, Transformers wasn’t his franchise.
I do give him credit for doing something (making a Transformers movie) that no one else had done before. Even if Transformers wasn’t his idea he still was a little bit original in the aspect that he marketed it like no one had ever done before. Is this worth me giving him a round of applause? No.
The thing that I don’t like is that people are praising him for being a great movie director. He wasn’t. He isn’t. All he is is a smarty pants… an entrepreneur
Haha Dan. I agree with you and Christina. While it wasn’t an original idea, Michael Bay must have done something right in the first Transformers movie to create demand enough for the second. He has created a new type of following, and whether it was for money, fame, or awards, he received them all. At least according to Wikipedia, Revenge of the Fallen was nominated for three Academy Awards, won MTV’s “Best Summer Movie You Haven’t Seen Yet,” (I find that one amusing) Kid Choice Awards’ “Favorite Movie” award, and “Best Special Effects” at the Kuala Lumpur International Film Festival, among others. The two of you seem to be looking down on the fact that it wasn’t an original idea, but to tap into a guaranteed fan base is not such a bad idea. It has worked well in the past, take Twilight and Harry Potter for example, and it meets the desires of the people who want to see their favorite book characters and comic strips made into big screen productions. In the end, whether you enjoyed the movie or not, I think that you must at least respect Bay for what he has done as he has been very successful in furthering the Transformers’ fan base.
Zach, I completely agree and I love your Pokémon card analogy. People definitely get caughP up in the “nostalgia of [the] demographic.” You mentioned that fans feel obligated to see the movie. My question is do people feel let down if the movie doesn’t live up to their expectations? Do they acknowledge that the movie’s portrayal does not do the original idea justice? Do they go see the second movie even after the first one was disappointing? I have somehow avoided getting caught up in this whole phenomenon so I’m curious as to how devoted people are to their “childhood gems” and how strong the fan base can possibly be.
I agree with a lot of what has been said, so bear with me as I repeat a couple of points. I feel as if Michael Bay, no matter what type of director (I won’t start the good vs bad debate again) he was, he had it really easy making this a hit. He could make a total dud (and some may argue he did) with a few key things that kept the ball in his court.
1- The sentimental aspect; Children grew up with Transformers as the toy and the show much before the movie was created. It’s just like any other sentimental toy-turned multimedia conglomerate. This idea is actually a trend in the upcoming years. It’s been said that Stretch Armstrong, Monopoly, Candy Land, and Battleship will be new movies in the next two years. Personally I feel like they’re going too far with it. However, people will always try to go back to their childhood favorites. Reunion tours, retro-themed toys and old school TV marathons will forever be popular because everyone loves that moment of nostalgia, and they’ll pay for it too.
2- The sequel aspect; The idea of sequels are almost equal to the sentimental aspect. Once people are “hooked” to a series, there is no way to skip a movie or a book without feeling as if you’ve disappointed as a fan. For example, I have been a DIE HARD Pirates of the Carribean fan since the ride. Then the movie series came out and I was there opening weekend for every movie. When others said the movies were getting worse I defended them. Now there will be a fourth movie coming out. Two of the leads (Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly) have since left the series, the budget has been cut down, and an unrelated and bizarre story line will be introduced. Does this sound horrible? Yes. Will this movie be terrible in comparison to the first three? Yes. Will I be there opening weekend with my Captain Jack Sparrow shirt on hoping it will be just as good as the first three? Of course I will. They will get my money for a terrible movie because as a fan, I feel like I need to see the movie. Bay could make the Transformers sequel crap (and to those who have seen the movie, it sounds like he did) but he made millions because his fans felt just as obligated as I have with my own favorite series.
3- The super celeb. aspect; Everyone knows that a movie can sell much quicker with a hot celebrity rather than little known stars. Transformers had Shia Lebouf, who had been on a steady rising career at the time, and Megan Fox who had burst onto the scene for her stunning beauty. Take them and compare them to Sam Worthington or Zoe Saldana when Avatar came out and it was a hands down victory for Shia and Megan. Celebrity has its perks and advantages.
all of these factors brought together seemed to be the perfect storm for Bay. all he had to do is open his door and let the money pile up.
I think Eberts review, and all other type of reviews for that matter hold an incredible standard in our recent culture. Even if you ignore them, are bothered by them, or agree with what said reviewer is saying; their role is a simple one. Disagree with Ebert, and you’re still going to talk about the movie, further leading you to see it evidently, maybe on numerous occasions to support your arguments. Job well done by the reviewer right? By proposing something, anything actually, about a movie/restaurant/book etc, this all gets people talking, thus advertising by word of mouth/press. Eberts years of experience and quality give him an upper hand. He is paid to criticize, but really he is just paid to advertise. When his reviews spark controversy, more press. As far as Transformer’s goes, i enjoyed both. The first more than the second, but sequels tend to suck. Eberts review seemed honest, and some comments seemed well supported, others just silly. But there were 1000+ comments. If that many people respond to one reviewers opinion, and they each saw the movie with a few friends, who all have different opinions, when that is said and done, you gross 800,000,000. By arguing we’re connecting. We’re conversing. I’m sure it helped that Megan Fox, Shia Labouf and Optimus Prime shared starring roles in this sequel that helped raise chatter too. I applaud Ebert for his work, but also give him a high five(literally) for scoring an incredible job where you get to watch movies, write your opinons, and get paid. Whether we like the reviews or not doesnt matter; what matters is that we listened.
Hey Lauren,I totally agree. I think that a critic is supposed to get a reaction out of people, and with a movie as popular as Transformers, he definitely succeeded in doing so. I don’t know about anyone else but I like both movies, and although I am not a die hard Transformer fan, I enjoyed them because they were targeted at my age audience, as opposed to the action figures which are more for the younger audience. Ebert observed every angle and was indeed like that of an expert, because in order to write a good review about something you have to know what you’re talking about. Some people even wrote more than once, whether good or bad, this guy really does his job well (that’s why he has an incredible job) and in no way is he an old fart. Yes, he may sound wiser, but then again, most of the people that commented revealed that they were much younger than him. I can’t wait for his review when the third one comes out (especially since Megan Fox won’t be in it)!
I agree with you Lauren that Ebert accomplished something important, discussion. The popularity of the movie spread because there were multiple reviews that led to a lot of discussion. But I disagree with you on the fact that this was Ebert’s job. Maybe he wanted people to talk about his review to gain publicity for himself but it wasn’t his motive to increase the popularity of the movie. Well I shouldn’t call it popularity but the number of people who desired to go to the movie to see it for themselves. A critic’s duty is to critique to film and provide the reader with his own personal opinion. While it may be a more qualified, intelligent opinion, it is an opinion none the less. While the comments were over 1000 and that is a major triumph we can not say that he accomplished his job by obtaining all of them. He completed his job my reviewing the movie not creating discussion.
In some bizarre way, criticism actually does bring attraction to a movie; whether it gets bad or good reviews. The varied perspectives offer something to the 1000+ reviews, but Ebert on some way i think offers more than needed. I’ll explain. First off, Ebert is an expert when it comes to movies. He’s suppose to be well knowledged to criticize and offer feedback on all different movies…bad or good. But why does Ebert not only criticize the movie but also the other reviewers who offer their own opinions? When we talk about a movie we are as Lauren said, conversing about the movie, and saying what we think. Ebert though demonstrated a constant harping on the badness of the movie and didn’t necessarily provide criticism that Michael Bay could use for future references to improve his movies (not saying Bay would want to change his supposed ‘visions’ (although i wouldn’t call them that)). Michael Bay as Luke and I discussed much earlier is the type of producer who sees an opportunity to make money and he does. Transformers is a bad movie. There was no special ideas brought to it that made it different from all the other action movies. Ebert yes does his job to criticize Bay for his errors but does he provide room for improvement? Or is his only intent to rip apart everything he saw that went wrong? Is our discussion about Transformers a result from Ebert’s opinion, or of the movie itself? I think opinions just demonstrate what people think, I’m not sure that it necessarily means that it’s the reason for discussion. Ebert criticized like he was suppose to but it’s not his job to spark the initial reaction….that job belongs to Bay, one which he didn’t succeed in doing.
When we listen to reviews we engage in what other people have to say but our initial perspective arrives the when we leave the theatres. Some people say “those explosions were AWESOME!” Whereas, others say “that movie stunk.” Opinions vary and Ebert’s real ‘job’ was to offer his opinion but the true ones come from the audience when they watch the movie because it’s their own opinion. Instead of an opinion that they are just following becuase lots of people have that certain view.
Lauren, you hit the nail right on the head! Whether you think an opinion can be right or wrong, whether you think a movie is qualified as being “good” or bad”, us as readers are doing exactly what Ebert wanted us to do, talk about it. He wants us to argue over his reviews, talk about his reviews, and continuously think about the movie and what he as to say. Earlier in class today Emily mentioned how an opinion is developed because of majority. If 50 people think the movie is good but only 25 think it’s bad then overall, the movie is qualified as being good; and you can still think it’s a bad movie, but majority says it’s not. As a result of people talking about the reviews and movies and arguing whether it is a good or bad movie, makes the movie that much more famous. Therefore whether you agree with Ebert or not, like Lauren said he is doing a fantastic job by making his readers engaged in the movies, whether you agree or disagree.
I do see how you bring this point up. When Ebert releaed his opinion on the movie though i saw many that did follow his specific views. There were some that challenged what he thought but i saw many that agreed. As i was reading these reviews, I began to think that Ebert has some sort of affect on people…an influence of persuasion. Ebert is suppose to be the expert right? So if someone gets an opinion on something from an expert don’t most people think that, that opinion is the ‘correct’ opinion? It doesn’t seem like it could happen becuse opinions aren’t suppose to be wrong, but Ebert makes it seem like if you don’t agree with him then you are technically speaking wrong.
Look at it this way. In the halls, when everyone crowds for those four-minute passing times different groups talk about different things. If you have a bunch of friends for example who think smoking is ‘cool’ and ‘hot’ and they tell you that the only way to fit in is to smoke, than what would you do (ignore the fact that smoking is bad and that you have the choice to leave those friends because they aren’t true friends)? In this case, you would probably choose to smoke. The influence of poeple could become too much and could persuade people to choose something that they wouldn’t necessarily choose on an everyday basis. Yes i know smoking is a completely different topic then movies but the similar influence topic connects them. Ebert wants to get a reaction from the audience after developing their own opinions but he makes it seem that you can think what you want to think but if you don’t think like him than you’re wrong.
Conversing about something like a movie is common and always happens. But when is the review too much and causes people to want to follow that specific view so they could be deemed ‘correct’. Engaging in a conversation is consistently happening but the purpose matters more.
Okay, so I decided to watch the trailer to Transformers 2 and it makes you think that the movie is very action packed but full of about ten different plots as well. I understand what Ebert was trying to say now, just by watching the trailer you see Sam, played by Shia Labeouf, is headed off to college, facing the negative effects of having a long distance relationship with Megan Fox, and then all of the other robot stuff random comes in. The trailer itself poorly transitions into the different things that are occurring. I had found this trailer on youtube.com and the one I happened to click on briefly discusses how giving Michael Bay 200 million dollars resulted in Transformers, Revenge of the Fallen. After they show the preview, the host to the little clip asks if it’s going to be the hit of the summer or “Has Micheal Bay bought a 200 million dollar lemon?” (I didn’t know that could be a bad thing.) According to some, it was a “lemon” but others ending up loving it. Let’s see what’s in store for Transformers 3.
I definitely see what you mean. The trailer just showed the “best” parts of the movie. I bet just by watching the trailer you could predict the majority of the plot. Therefore you wouldn’t even need to see the movie. The trailer tries so hard to get people to come see the movie that it gives away the story. I feel like our culture has become more and more focused on the “highlights” of things like movies. A 3 hour movie can be compressed into a 2 minute trailer that depicts all the explosions and a brutally basic plot outline. Why not just fast forward through the entire movie and skip to the “good” parts? We do this with sports too. A 2 hour game can be boiled down to a 30 second montage of video clips. It doesn’t show the plays leading up to the sensational moments. Our culture no longer appreciates the build-up to anything. We seem to demand the most exciting parts of movies, sports games and such while completely disregarding the rest of it. Transformers 2 and all its explosions and “sensational” moments exemplify this trend.
Madeleine I agree with you. “Our culture no longer appreciates the build-up to anything” is absolutely correct. We have become a generation that is use to instant gratification, and anything less than that we give a thumbs down to. Our lives move at an exceptionally fast pace, and so we essentially demand that our entertainment goes along the same lines.
And so my point is, while Transformers 2 may have done this by putting all its best scenes into a 2min trailer, so does every movie nowadays. It doesn’t matter if it is a romantic movie, a thriller, comedy, or suspense. They take the goriest, funniest, cutest, or most brilliant explosion with the addition of a great song to make you turn to your friend in the movie theater after seeing the coming attraction and going, “Now THAT looks good! We have to go see that!”. And then what happens? You see the movie, and it more times than often doesn’t live up to the expectation. Nevertheless, that doesn’t matter because the fancified movie trailer got you to the theater, and you spent your money. So whether you actually fully enjoyed the movie or not, is no longer essential. That is why I don’t understand why there is so much arguing about Transformers 2. I saw the first one, OK it was good and I have yet to see the second one. If it disappointed many people, so what. Lots of movies are disappointing. Lots of squeals to movies don’t live up to the first. The original was not the greatest movie ever, so why should people get so worked up about the 2nd one? If it sucked, then let the critics write that is sucked. That’s their job. If you agree, than agree with them. And if you found transformers 2 to be a great movie, then ignore the critics critique and be satisfied that you yourself found it enjoyable. But if you want to battle it out on blogs telling people they are ridiculous for not enjoying it, just remember to ask yourself: are you standing up for the idea that you actually thought the movie was good, or are you standing up for your favorite childhood toy- the brand of transformers?
I completely agree with both Madeline, and Kaity. We seem to live our lives in fast forward. Watching only the highlights. DVR everything so we can just watch the most thrilling parts of not only sport games but TV shows. I myself am guilty of refusing to watch commercials; you rarely can find me watching live TV. When I think of this fast paced I life I can’t help but think of Fahrenheit 451. Ray Bradbury had the right idea when he described people racing down the highway over 100 miles an hour forcing the advertisements to be hundreds of feet for people to be able to read them. Kids driving down the street in their cars, not slowing down for pedestrians but instead seeking them out and hunting them down. This thought makes me cringe; we are moving so fast that are we moving in the direction of Fahrenheit 451? Movies are criticized for being slow, given the kiss of death when deemed a chick-flick. Heaven for bid a guy was forced to see a romantic movie and enjoy it, they are not allowed. They are instead to enjoy the plotless, bad acting of a movie like Transformers because it has explosions and Megan Fox running in slow motion. Now that is what I call a great movie.
Madeline, you’re mentioning of the “highlights” reminds me of the common compaint about news reports. People are more interested in a story with a fashy headline, and journalists seen on TV cover stories in small thirty second to one minute blocks of time. This just-get-to-the-part-I-care-about attitude reveals itself in our culture through things like movie previews. You’re no longer recieveing the whole story unless you go digging for it; as Ebert went digging for it, just like anyone who went to go see Transfromers 2 did, he didn’t like the whole story. We’re a society attracted to and fed sound-bites of information through the news, previews and other mediums of entertainment. The idea is to hook the viewer instantly, and Transformers 2 previews did just that- too bad the whole story of the movie fell short of the hype of the highlight reel.
Nicole, you mentioned that the movie cost 200 million dollars. I think that is a disgusting amount of money to spend on a movie. Especially on a movie that has little apparent value other than action and explosions (correct me if I’m wrong on this; I have only seen the first movie). I think that there are far better uses for money like that, as would many people. I’m surprised that Roger Ebert did not attack this quantity in his review. In my opinion, at least, I think that for that amount of money, the movie should be the best it can be: good plot, strong script, talented actors, engaging special effects. These things come with money, but only if the original story line is worth working with. No matter how much money you put into constructing a building, it will never stand in the long run if it is built on a shaky foundation.
I agree with all of you in the sense that everything we watch today has to be engaging enough so that we will actually sit there for hours and not become bored with it. As far as the amount of money they spent on the movie, that’s a whole different story. In general, we spend way too much money on making movies and that money should be spent helping our economy, but like I said that’s a whole different story. As for trailers giving away the gist of a movie, you couldn’t be more right. My friends and I watched the trailer to a “chick flick” called Leap Year, and it was so predictable what was going to happen and how it was going to happen, but being the girls that we are, we just had to watch it anyway to get the satisfaction that there was a happy ending like we thought. I think that you will rarely see a trailer to a movie (especially chick flicks) in which the ending is unpredictable, unless the trailer is not telling you anything about the movie at all. I saw a movie last night and when the previews came on, my friends and I were able to get the gist of every movie except this one in which the trailer told us absolutely nothing about the movie itself. All it showed was a car crashing into a train that carried some creature. The movie was called Super 8 and the trailer tells you very little information about what the movie is even about. Because of this, I don’t think I would want to go see it due to the fact that it provides little information on what the movie entails. Unlike the trailer of Transformers 2, we are given little information as to what’s going to happen in this movie. I do agree that is may be a result of how fast we are moving in our economy and how we just want to see the best parts of things. But I think that if we continue to spend money and watch these movies even after seeing the trailers, then they must be doing something right.
I agree people like to know what they are getting themselves into when they go to a movie; I know that if I have no idea what a movie is about, then I certainly won’t go see it. As for the last idea you discussed (the movie industry doing something right), I think that the movie industry targets their audience well. They know we want to see what the movie will be about in the trailer, they also make movies about toys (Transformers) or other things they know their audience has an attachment to. But, what if the audience decided not to go see Transformers 3 because of the disappointment with the second movie, do you think that the film industry would continue following the easy, unoriginal path? Or would they change to suit their audience and maintain their success? In other words- do you think this success will be short-lived or do you think the industry will be successful forever?
Taylor, I was reaidng an article a couple weeks ago when I was including Shia LaBeouf in my research paper. I can answer your question “Or would they change to suit their audience and maintain their success?” After the complaints about the second Transfromers movie, the wiriters are supposably looking back to the first- as opposed to the second- when wiritng the third. This is because overall they know they’ve hit a goldmine when it comes to the Transformers series, and they’re not going to risk their continuing success due to disapointment about the second movie. They want to please fans, and to ensure the longevity of the movies and the franchise surrounding them they have to continue to please fans. I believe that the industry surrounding the Transformers will be successfull until our generation is too old to remember it because of the general love of the toys and the huge success so far. (Or until the film industry decides to pull an Indiana Jones series move, and make another movie when we’re all at the brink of forgetting the last one. Whichever comes first.)
That part about trailers really aggravates me. When they show action-packed trailers and ‘sneak peaks,’ aren’t you looking foward to seeing the whole movie, and thinking to yourself that the movie will actually be really good? When i see movies with funny trailers that appeal to my ‘type’ of movie i always want to see that movie. However, i even thought the trailers for transformers 2 were pretty bad. They showed nothing different from transformers 1 and they didnt appeal in an interesting way. I expect great movies from trailors that look entertaining, and michael bay definately let me down. The movie wasn’t special but although it continued from transformers 1, it wasn’t anything that i didn’t expect. I wasn’t surprised in anyway. Transformers 3 already doesn’t look interesting to me but i will probably see it anyway with my friends so that i can form my own opinion. Michael Bay doesn’t bring anything creative to his movies and the best parts are the trailors…and that’s sad to admit. If the trailors are the only good part, then Bay has a lot to worry about when it comes to losing an audience that actually enjoys his movies.
One poster responded to Robert Ebert’s “I’m a Proud Brainiac” with “I am surprised that a critic has to defend being critical.” I thought the same thing as I read the article. Ebert clearly stated his opinion of the movie, “a horrible experience of unbearable length,” in his review of Transformers. That should have been the end of it. Just as Ebert had the right to criticize the movie, his readers had the right to criticize him. Both parties should respect and hear out the others’ opinions. I feel that there was little if any need for Ebert to respond since his argument was already articulated. Ebert’s main purpose in “Brainiac” is to defend the position of being a critic, the argument that poster Brian G. mocks. While I find it ironic, I also think it is a bit justified. It is definitely true that people have a hard time respecting the opinions of people whose views sharply contrast with their own. The “what makes you an expert” question would definitely cross the mind in such a situation, but in reality, your opinion is your opinion and that is not something that can be proven right or wrong, no matter how much you know about the subject. I think that Ebert is most successful in giving himself and his opinions more authority in this piece. He shows his evolution as a critic and his readiness to learn more and further his knowledge of film. After reading this piece, Ebert definitely comes across as less of the know-it-all critic stereotype and more as a movie-goer with refined tastes. Therefore I can certainly see why it benefits him to “defend being critical.”
I think that you’re putting slightly too much faith in the masses when you say that “both parties should respect and hear out the others’ opinions.” It’s unfortunate that we’re so stubborn and unable to look at all sides of the picture, but it’s more than true. We’re too often blinded by our own convictions to the reason in others’ arguments. This is exemplified in arguments about movies (like this one), music, and art.
I agree when you say that “it is deffinately true that people have a hard time respecting the opinions of people whose views sharply contrast with their own.” That was put lightly. To paraphrase one of the comments: it’s no longer enough to believe something, we have to hate and argue with everyone who believes something else. But, this isn’t a new mentality; humans have argued, battled, and shed blood over subtle, or nonexistent differences for years. But, enough of that, now for Ebert.
Ebert did well defending his position, regardless of motives. He certainly does not come off as insecure about his beliefs, or perception of Transformers 2. It was awful, and he supported his argument sufficiently, and for the naysayers… well, he had more. He continued to respond to the critics of his criticism because he could. He stood his ground, and even if you disagree with him, you must respect that. He did come off as arrogant on some level, but I agree that it helped him to “defend being critical”.
I have to agree with Luke here: faith in the masses is the last thing I have when it comes to matters of opinion. People inherently lash out at something that conflicts with themselves, especially from behind the relative safety of a computer monitor, when their excessive and unnecessary rage can be filtered through their weapon of choice: the mighty keyboard. Generally, in person people are less vehement about contrary opinions. However, behind the comfort of their desktop they can wage virtual war with impudence, their anonymity making them more brazen. As Ashley Winward said waaay up top, the internet is adept at breeding stupidity and ignorance.
However, I do have a different opinion on Ebert’s decision to actively comment back and forth with his readers. While it removes the hardline, untouchable stance that a straight up article would hold; I think the fact that he chose to engage his readers in discussion was bold. He opened a conversation, instead of merely stating: “This is my opinion.” I don’t think that it’s a better or worse approach than a simple article, I merely think that it’s different. It encourages a different type of thinking, and the conversation provokes a more dynamic argument than a passive one. Readers have the ability to support Ebert’s original argument, or dispute it. The argument becomes ever changing and malleable, rather than fixed and immobile. Again; neither better nor worse: just different. I think it was a cool approach, actively engaging your reader in writing isn’t always easy to do and Ebert does so very directly here.
Though it is absolutely absurd that he needed to defend his position as a critic.
“… when their excessive and unnecessary rage can be filtered through their weapon of choice: the mighty keyboard.”
More specifically: the caps lock button.
I agree. I feel like the fact that Ebert actually wrote a whole new article defending the first one is needless. I’m pretty sure he got his point across in the first one: Transformers 2 was bad. As a critic, whose job is to criticize movies, he should be expected to have an opinion. And when something can be labelled an opinion, it can be disagreed with. There is no opinion in the entire world that every person on the planet agrees with. Disagreement is to be expected with any opinion. By writing, his second article, it seemed like he let his readers get to him. He never really questioned his own opinion but he, on some level, disliked the dissent. I feel like he felt undermined by his readers and needed to respond.
And in a perfect world, people would listen to each other’s opinions, keep open minds and disagree respectfully. But, this is far from a perfect world. Brian’s right, people are stubborn. Not all people. Just most.
I’m going to see Transformers 3.
As much as I think Transformer 2 SUCKED, and as much as we debate the nature of “good” and “bad” and the reviews, when Ebert mentions there are fans that will always go see it because it’s Transformers- I had to agree. The franchise, whether you loved it as a kid or not, is successful. People who never really liked, or knew about, Transformers until the first movie and then thought that was cool will still go see it. I’m one of those people- one who didn’t really get in to Transformers as a kid, but was blown away by the first movie. That in itself is enough to keep me coming back again and again to see more Transformers duke it out with Decepticons.
So whether you like Transformers or not, or would dare to call it “good” or “bad” or not, I’d venture to say that the majority of us are going to go see Transformers 3. Even if the third movie looks worse than the second (which I sincerely hope it doesn’t) it’s still going to hit records at the box office.
As much as we disliked the second movie, we’re a society hooked on Transformers- and analyzing why we’ll still come back for more says something about our culture in general.
In general, I think Transformers had the scenes that brought an attraction for people to see, but kinda like let them down in the end. The job Michael Bay has should be one where everything comes to life and anything can happen. Although things literally do come to life, i never saw anything spectacular in those movies. Ebert was right to say that the movie sucked, because it really did. There wasn’t anything that caused someone to want to like fist fight Ebert and demand that he is wrong. Partially cause Ebert is right. The points he brings to the movie emphasize how Bay didn’t use everything he could’ve to make this movie possible. Ebert’s criticism offers his opinions and although some argued him, there were both “good” and “bad” reviews. I do agree with Sarah above in the sense that no matter what people thought of the two previous Transformer movies, many will still go see the third. Ebert was critical but constantly defended his position of his views. He did well in the sense that people view him as an expert, but what purpose does it serve the fact that he has already sort of won so why keep defending his point?
Our society realizes that some movies are bad but we still see them so that we can form our own opinion and our own critiques. Ebert is seen as an expert and many people follow him becuase of that, but people need to form their own opinions based on what they thought. I still don’t think opinions can be right or wrong because they’re based on that specific person. You may agree or disagree but it’s what i think. Movies are a common ground of discussion, so good or bad movie, many people will still see it. Critics play a role, but not that much to stop everyone from seeing it for themselves.