BLOG: Ebert Says People Who Believe Revenge of the Fallen Was Good Are Wrong

[Blitz-Wing]

My point is...how can a movie be labeled bad if by a bad reviewer?

 

Because there are people who will pick a movie reviewer and use his word as gold. I have a buddy who, coincidentally enough, is a huge Ebert fan and will guage watching a movie solely on his review. Is that bad? No. Is it silly? In my opinion, sure. I just believe in putting all of one's eggs in a single basket.

[Taaron]

Here is the link to the review. Of interest is the fact he has gone and changed Starscream to Jetfire since I last read it. Obviously he got some flack for that blunder.

 

 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/906239997

 

It's kind of confusing. It seems he stopped paying attention, when it came to

Devastator attacking the pyramid. This was after Starscream EMP'd the place, wasn't it? All surveillance in the area would be knocked out. And did he think the Wheelie humping

scene was amusing?

[Peter_Van]

I agree with Ebert on this one, the moive wasn't a good movie. And I think people who say the movie was good are wrong. or to put it another way I think they using the wrong word to describe it.

 

I haven't read Ebert's Blog. But I did read his review. And the TFormers article about his blog post.

 

I felt the TFormers article was too defensive, it felt very critical.

 

I think people need to understand the meaning certain words convey.

 

Good and Bad are measurements

They are reference points comapred to some kind of accepted scale(usually some generally aceepted scale). So that they can mean the same thing to various people.

 

That's his job, he measures these movies against some kind of accepted measurement for moive reviewing. And I can garuntee it's more than just his personel opinion.

 

Like and dislike are opinions

 

if you use good and bad to describe your personal opinons of something then thier meaning is only realitive to you. That's what like and dislike are for.

 

This article is not a news article.

 

It's a blog article and is solely my opinion.

 

I wrote that I didn't want to bore anybody with his review. I don't think it was necessary to even care about what he says in the actual review, since the gist is that he panned the movie as hard as he possibly could. Hell he freaking broke the handle of the pan over the top of the head that is Revenge of the Fallen.

 

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to convey in the blog post, though. I was merely defending our fandom (while there are some people within that are questionable) and our sole right to enjoy movies that we enjoy.

 

He insulted the fandom and the people who enjoyed the movie by saying they are wrong, and I am not happy about that one bit. I'm not personally attacking him, but I'm attacking his words and what he deems to be his high stoop where he looks down upon us and just says, "you like this movie that I thought was terrible? You're wrong! I'm going to more or less, in nicer words, call you stupid!"

 

This would have nothing to do with me liking the movie or not. I think reality shows are pointless and dumb. But if somebody calls a person who likes those shows stupid, I will defend them as hard as I am defending the fandom and the people who liked this film.

 

There's nothing wrong with liking something dumb, but it doesn't mean you are dumb.

[formerly nortagem]

Sorry, I'm gonna have to go with Ebert's assessment on this one. While my scoring probably wouldn't be quite as brutal (perhaps a half-star to a star higher), I can understand a majority of his sentiment. As a fan, there are things in ROTF that I wanted/missed in the first movie, and I got them in this one! However, looking at all of ROTF faults & just judging this on the basis of being a cohesive film, I've gotta go with the first one being the better of the two. Ebert thought so too...just compare the two critiques for yourself:

 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...S/70620006/1023

 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...VIEWS/906239997

 

...and I gotta address this. There was one thing that struck a chord in your blog statement, bwbm: "But I don't believe he has the right to tell 56% of 2354 people that chose "Loved it" in our recent poll are wrong." That's not completely accurate...you could have 10 people vote 100 times a piece, on top of the one-time voters, to get to that number. I think if TFormers.com wanted accurate polls, you guys should set this to one vote per login. :shrug 'Cause it's relatively easy to run up one category!

 

To me, the things that saved this movie from being a complete shipwreck, were the dialogue/relationship between Megs & Screamer and the Forest battle scene!

[Peter_Van]

^ Okay, you do have a point. But if it was even 26%, I wouldn't have changed one word of my post. Except, you know, the percentage thingie.

[TRANS-lego-MaN]

Ebert has gone senile. I'm getting sick of his bullshit. He hated Star Trek (2/4) but he liked land of the lost which sucked and he gives ROTF a 1, A FUCKING 1. Thats even lower than what he gave that dreaded piece of fecal matter Batman & Robin. Roger Ebert, you and your over-exaggerated reviews can BLOW ME!

You do realize the man had cancer and half of his jaw line removed don't you?

 

I actually agreed with Eberts review, but just cause I agree with what he wrote doesn't change the fact that I liked the movie for what it was. If you get over emotional over a movie critics review, you need help.

 

I don't get over-emotional why is everyone mis-interpreting what I'm trying to say? It's a post and you have no knowledge of what I'm feeling like when I'm posting it. It just pisses me off that he literally ripped this movie to shreds because it didn't meet his expectations.

 

More than half my family has died of some form of cancer, and there's a chance I'll get it later in my life, don't get me started. I have no sympathy for him anyway.

i'm not tring to be mean to anybody but he could could have gotten cancer form smoking ciggerates to much earlier in his life so i wouldn't fell bad for him because he would have done that too him self but if it was passed down through his family then i fell really bad for him, one of my school teachers has cancer and i fell really bad becuase she was out most of last year so i'll it again i'm really not trying to piss anybody off because i know somebody who has cancer but if they did that to them selfs that is a different story

 

 

TLM---please don't take this as an attack, just an effort to get a point across---your bringing up of cigarettes is a good example of something that makes/has made tons of money, is endorsed and supported multiple times by the masses and yet is still inherently bad. . .

thats what i was trying to say i just couldn't find the right words to say it

[TRANS-lego-MaN]

ok i just have to say but is ebert going all british on us by saying this Ebert then decides to insult some of the active members of the fandom, writing, they "are nine blooms short of a bouquet WTF?

[Zombie Galvatron<br />]

Of course, we do have to be careful not to confuse "good" with "enjoyable". A Domino's pizza is enjoyable, but it's by no means good food. That's the way I feel about ROTF. Was it good? Probably not. Did I enjoy it? Hell yeh.

[BlackoutX]

Of course, we do have to be careful not to confuse "good" with "enjoyable". A Domino's pizza is enjoyable, but it's by no means good food. That's the way I feel about ROTF. Was it good? Probably not. Did I enjoy it? Hell yeh.

 

:agree

[skysamfreeman]

It's supposed to be a TRANSFORMERS movie! These retards don't know anything about TF! It's about giant robots beating the crap out of each other and explosions.