Roger Ebert has something to prove to the world it seems, as he continues his asinine viewpoint that videogames "will never" be art. You know what art is, right? It's that completely subjective thing that by its very nature can't be exclusive to certain medium just because some out-of-touch hack says so. In his review of the Hitman movie, Ebert continues his tirade:
"The movie, directed by Xavier Gens, was inspired by a best-selling video game and serves as an excellent illustration of my conviction that video games will never become an art form - never, at least, until they morph into something else or more ... The troopers spring into sight, pop up and start shooting, and he has target practice. He also jumps out of windows without knowing where he's going to land, and that feels like he's cashing in a chip he won earlier in the game."
Apparently, this movie's style is proof that games will never become art, despite the fact that this is a movie which he says isn't art ... and yet he calls movies art ... except this one is not ... and ... and ... and shut up, for Christ's sake, Ebert. His use of this movie is as illogical and arbitrary as his founding argument, and I wish he wouldn't pluck random points from the sky, essentially setting his stance in a make-believe world where he picks and chooses the rules. Stating games, for example, will never be art because they're interactive is akin to me saying that planes can't fly because they have wheels ... the arguments and the reasons given simply have no correlation and nothing is proven.
Ebert claims that the movie might have been more like his utopian view of art if it did not have to fulfil "obligatory videogame requirements." I personally fail to see how this is different from a James Bond or Die Hard film, and yet movies are given far more respect by this man. What he needs to do is shut up, play some Half-Life 2, play a little BioShock maybe, and then stuff a sock down his throat so he can't keep expressing his jealousy that there's a new art medium in town.
Contest:
7:32 AM on 11.26.2007
| 
On the other hand, I'm still waiting for that David Lean game.
I do wonder: are we doing ourselves a disservice in continuing to pay attention to Mr. Ebert while he repeats the exact same complaints over and over again? Are we not simply empowering his opinion by reacting to it constantly? I think we've confirmed that he's got no idea what he's talking about so why waste more time telling him off? Surely, there are other critics out there. Ones that are more receptive to change and new forms of art.
Shit, thats like me criticizing "The Perfume" book just because the movie sucked.
The troopers spring into sight, pop up and start shooting, and he has target practice.
I wonder what he thought of Star Wars
present an academic argument instead of this tripe of a post, and maybe one day, he'll hear the rest of the community out.
Fat fuck.
Nuff said, fuk off random old man!
Like TopedoTed said "fuk off random old man!".
I've been saying that bit about planes with wheels for years, but just figured I'd sit back and let those morons plunge to a fiery final end in their "flying" wheeled deathcraft. Idiots. The two can never coexist.
Two thumbs up and his fat head lodged in his ass.
->uptonogood: If I were to make the statement "grass is the tastiest substance in the world" without any qualifiers, it would be difficult to argue against it other than saying "no it isn't, you idiot". It's difficult to employ logic against someone who ignores it. The problem is he simply has no understanding of the medium, so all his arguments sound utterly ridiculous to most of us. Considering this is very much a niche/hardcore gaming site, that won't get very much attention from the public at large, I don't think this kind of post is entirely inappropriate, nor is it the first covering this particular topic, so a more academic approach would be a little repetitious.
Jack of No Trades said "This is whats wrong with the world. To many old people trying to dictate their beliefs on a new generation."
That could be said about anybody's generation in talking about an older one.
But second, WHO FRIGGIN CARES what Ebert thinks? If anything this is Ebert's "problem", let him to it and move along already. Some fossil says your form of entertainment is less important than theirs? ZOMGWTF N00B FRAG HIM 1337LMAO...
Stop whining.
Why do you think there are so many wars?
Ha, that and the fact that we humans are a pretty violent bunch to begin with.
So that means that action movies such as Live Free of Die Hard and many others are not considered art?
Ebert is indeed a moron.
a very nice one of him indeed...
Someone strap this mothafucka down and make him play Shadow of the Colosuss.
I'LL KILL HIM
Then I guess my Art History degree that landed me that job as a VIDEOGAME degree is worthless now!
-jumps out of building, knowing where i'll land-
Who cares if they are? We certainly don't, we already play them. Stop trying to push for pop culture/social acceptance of our entertainment medium. It doesn't matter what the retards in Hollywood think. Our games are fun, some are just straight shooters, others have intriguing storylines, plotpoints, and character development. Some are about war, some are about love. Some are about pokémon, some are about real world issues. Either way, if all, some, or none of them are art - who gives a shit. Play them and rejoice in the fact that you spent an hour having fun. Not an hour watching what really is a 40 minute progam, with 20 minutes of commercials.
That was a rant if I ever wrote one...
Also, cocks. Something Ebert is probably familiar with. Unnecessary? Sure. But a rant is no good without a baseless derogatory remark! Back to you, Internets!
Anyone who doesn't like Blade Runner = instant fail in my book. That book is called "In Which I Make Personal Judgements About People Solely Based on Their Enjoyment of Blade Runner". It didn't sell many copies.
Do we really need movie critics? I mean, really. We're talking about a $10 investment. Plus, the douche rates movies on a 5 point scale where as IMDB (formed by many people's opinions) is on a 10 point scale. Anyone who rates on 5's is asking to get hit in the teeth with a spoon.
Look, this guy is a CRITIC, a person who gives their professional OPINION. No matter how well formed his movie reviews are, it's still his opinion of a movie, just like it's his opinion of videogames. Ebert is by no means the end all be all authority on movies, or videogames for that matter. He should leave the designation of "art" to the real learned authorities on art. The only reason this is getting any kind of real coverage is because Ebert is popular. If he were some nobody schmoe from a small town local newspaper it would be something completely different.
Look, this guy is a CRITIC, a person who gives their professional OPINION. No matter how well formed his movie reviews are, it's still his opinion of a movie, just like it's his opinion of videogames. Ebert is by no means the end all be all authority on movies, or videogames for that matter. He should leave the designation of "art" to the real learned authorities on art. The only reason this is getting any kind of real coverage is because Ebert is popular. If he were some nobody schmoe from a small town local newspaper it would be something completely different.
It's convoluted. He took what he thinks is a bad movie, which is based on a videogame, and used that connection to say that videogames are not art. Also, he's taking well known action movie conventions (bad guys as target practice, jumping randomly through windows), which have made for some extremely awsome actions movies (The Matrix), and used them as "proof" that videogames are not art.
Yes, he is a moron.
Seriously, though, he’s simply a man with an opinion, like anyone else. Just because yours differs from his doesn’t make it any less important, so just leave the old man to his devices. I mean, I like his reviews otherwise, but you can’t really blame him if he’s woefully out of touch with regards to video games. I mean, my parents see them as a complete waste of time, and Ebert has at least 10–20 years on them.
This time he's stretching, really stretching, and making an idiot out of himself in the process.
It's probably too late and everyone has moved on from this post but you're right about needing to expose ignorance. However, is that really what's being done here? Putting a story up on this site is just preaching to the converted. What Clive Barker did, now that was actually combating ignorance. It was public and directed squarely at Ebert. And, it did actually force Ebert to think and, in response, change his argument slightly. Not enough of course but a good start on chipping away his prejudices.
->Sharpless: The problem with his opinion is that he doesn't seem to know jack shit about games, but is still publicly and authoritatively expressing a completely uninformed opinion about them. Games as a medium have enough to contend with with some pompous ignoramus ragging on them too.
To hell if I know.
Has he ever actually talked about playing video games, though?
Actually, as far as I know he's reviewed at least one PC game in the past. I saw it before, but I don't know where to find it anymore sorry.